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

[logan5]

Originally Posted by nname

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.

I presume the total cost of 2 billion would include materials, so it looks as if you're inflating the cost of materials twice, and then you presume the cost of materials is 2 billion dollars, if I'm reading that right. With 15% inflation, the cost of C line goes up to 2.3 billion, which is still 33% cheaper than Bombardier Skytrain, using my formula anyways.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

I presume the total cost of 2 billion would include materials, so it looks as if you're inflating the cost of materials twice, and then you presume the cost of materials is 2 billion dollars, if I'm reading that right. With 15% inflation, the cost of C line goes up to 2.3 billion, which is still 33% cheaper than Bombardier Skytrain, using my formula anyways.

Inflation for construction material is much higher than the 2% annual inflation rate. We used to be able to build SkyTrain line at $60M/km, but now its pretty close to$100M/km, inflation adjusted. Just look at the graph in post #1632 - why is Evergreen Line cost 60% more in 2003$ than Millennium Line? This applies to the $10-30M/km LRT systems in the 80s that people use to prove how "cheap" LRT systems can be.

Even for Evergreen Line, the discount used for construction cost is 3.94%.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

I presume the total cost of 2 billion would include materials, so it looks as if you're inflating the cost of materials twice, and then you presume the cost of materials is 2 billion dollars, if I'm reading that right. With 15% inflation, the cost of C line goes up to 2.3 billion, which is still 33% cheaper than Bombardier Skytrain, using my formula anyways.

Your math is way off... you're just pulling numbers out of the sky.

The Bombardier bid was higher probably because of three reasons:

1. They would have included 80m platforms instead of 40-50.
2. They were not allowed to reference any cost savings on vehicle purchases, maintenance, etc. due to sharing with the existing system.
3. As mentioned, not using cut and cover construction.

I'm not sure if Bombardier's bid was ever made public, I can't find reference to it online.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Your math is way off... you're just pulling numbers out of the sky.

The Bombardier bid was higher probably because of three reasons:

1. They would have included 80m platforms instead of 40-50.
2. They were not allowed to reference any cost savings on vehicle purchases, maintenance, etc. due to sharing with the existing system.
3. As mentioned, not using cut and cover construction.

I'm not sure if Bombardier's bid was ever made public, I can't find reference to it online.

It was a guesstimation based on other Skytrain costs. Obviously not an exact science. The Hyandai/Rotem system was cheaper to build, I'm trying to figure out by how much. Even if we add 32% inflation (assuming materials alone cost 2 biilion) to the cost, it would still be significantly cheaper than Bombardier technology. Total cost today would be 2.64 billion.

I guesstimated 80 million/km for elevated Hyandai/Rotem. How far off do you think that is? What would your estimate be?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not sure if Bombardier's bid was ever made public, I can't find reference to it online.

I don't believe it ever was, although it is well known that there would have been cost savings due to integration with the rest of the system which were Bombardier were prohibited from accounting for in their bid.

[SFUVancouver]

A number I have heard referenced once by someone who was knowledgeable about the Canada Line process was that total expected savings of the winning bid is $24 million over the 35 year life of the concession contract. Take that with an enormous grain of salt (I do). If it was that razor thin, I expect that the Bombardier bid would have been successful at delivering a lower total cost of ownership if they had been able to capitalize on the savings of a single maintenance and operations centre. We will likely never know. I think that there was merit in having a competition with a levelled playing field (inadmissibility of Bombardier's efficiencies) and that undoubtedly forced the Bombardier-led consortium to put in a more competitive bid than it if were effectively sole-sourced. However, I think that was economically irresponsible to not have the efficiencies quantified as part of the the bidding process so that the Province could make an informed decision using all the relevant information. The government may well have chosen the Bombardier bid in the end, even if it had a greater up-front price tag because of operational savings and network efficiencies. Anyway, I like the Canada Line and I think it is doing exactly what it was supposed to do. However, I wish the frequency was far improved; 20 minutes waiting for a train to Richmond late at night is insane for rapid transit and doesn't even quality as part of the frequent transit network for buses. I also think that we've painted ourselves into a corner due to station size and design, and the locked-in level of service for the life of the 35 year concessionaire contract is absurd. Just let that sink in: contractually, there will be no improvements in the level of service for the next three decades.

[xd_1771]

I'd post regarding extensive research I've done on the Canada Line and why it ended up as is, but just trying to get the desktop up and running again. it definitely had nothing to do with choice of propulsion technology (LIM vs rotary)

[logicbomb]

Question I keep asking is what can the LRT offer that the current 96 cannot?

Frequent service? The 96 does that with 7-8 min frequencies.

Capacity? Right now, the current level of ridership doesn't even warrant those 60 FT buses during most hours of the day. In fact, I counted three consecutive 40 FT buses on that route on Saturday, and most of them were at 10-20% capacity.

Are we really kidding ourselves here that a bus on rails will attract 3x the riders down the King George Blvd and 104th Corridors? The arrogant engineers and transportation planners seem to think so, citing both the Seattle and Portland LRT as examples of a successful systems in its infancy. Two issues here: First off, Surrey is a suburb, lacking an entertainment district (no arenas or entertainment venues), top tier universities (SFU Surrey is puny), and a central business district. Secondly, Surrey is lacking a transit oriented culture, perhaps the utter most essential requirement for any successful rapid transit network. Many bus routes down these corridors were only added the FTN in the mid-late 2000’s.

I do firmly believe that Skytrain do attract riders. It's no coincidence why the best performing routes in Surrey all connect to a skytrain station.

[red-paladin]

The performance of the new Evergreen Line vs. exisiting bus routes to Coquitlam Town Centre will be an example.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

The performance of the new Evergreen Line vs. exisiting bus routes to Coquitlam Town Centre will be an example.

The Evergreen Line is a fully grade separated light metro with significant time savings over bus.

How much will the time savings of LRT be compared to B-Line?

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Two issues here: First off, Surrey is a suburb, lacking an entertainment district (no arenas or entertainment venues), top tier universities (SFU Surrey is puny), and a central business district. Secondly, Surrey is lacking a transit oriented culture, perhaps the utter most essential requirement for any successful rapid transit network. Many bus routes down these corridors were only added the FTN in the mid-late 2000’s.

Issue 1: They are currently building their CBD. The city has laid the plans down and is actually following through with it. Not only have all levels of government been investing heavily in the area, but developers have taken notice and bought up huge amounts of land in the area. Bring in people and in comes cultural and entertainment venues. Remember, it is the 4th most populous city in the Pacific Northwest and the 5th in Western Canada. Give it some time and it will be a core city with its own suburbs in its own right.

Issue 2: It is difficult to foster a transit oriented culture without providing transit. The South Fraser region is where the lion's share of the growth in BC is happening. Surrey alone grew by 73,275 people between 2006 and 2011 according to the Census. BC grew by 286,570. That means Surrey took 25.5% of the total population growth of BC. Vancouver grew by 25,461 and Burnaby by 20,419, Richmond by 16,012 and Coquitlam by 11,891 during the same period. That is a combined 73,783 or 25.7% of the total growth. Surrey is the only city out of all of these cities that did not have any rapid transit expansion or shovels in the ground building rapid transit. This alone should show that there is a major disparity of who is receiving transit expansion.

[GlassCity]

It will take a very long time for Surrey's CBD to become established. And it will never stop being a suburb of Vancouver. It could become like our Oakland, but it will still be obvious that it came to existence because of Vancouver.

The reason they're getting rapid transit expansion is because those cities have the density to support it. While Surrey has a high population, it is sprawled out over a very large area, making rapid transit have a bad case. Get the 96 B-Line to half the ridership that the 99 gets and then maybe you could start talking. But right now, I don't think Surrey needs rapid transit all that much. A line to Langley that would serve mostly as a commuter service would suffice.

Keep in mind that I have little connection to either Vancouver or Surrey, and this is my unbiased opinion.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It will take a very long time for Surrey's CBD to become established. And it will never stop being a suburb of Vancouver. It could become like our Oakland, but it will still be obvious that it came to existence because of Vancouver.

Vancouver used to be second to New Westminster. The only reason it grew was due to rail expansion. No New Westminster, no Vancouver.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The reason they're getting rapid transit expansion is because those cities have the density to support it. While Surrey has a high population, it is sprawled out over a very large area, making rapid transit have a bad case. Get the 96 B-Line to half the ridership that the 99 gets and then maybe you could start talking. But right now, I don't think Surrey needs rapid transit all that much. A line to Langley that would serve mostly as a commuter service would suffice.

Cut out the ALR and South Surrey and and you have plenty of density to work with. Not to mention that there are many dense points you could use to build rapid transit line along. Even the City has stated that it wouldn't be necessary (yet) to extend to South Surrey.

The 96 B-Line has only been in operation for 3 months. Buses don't drive dense growth, trains do. There was barely any development along the 98 B-Line route until the Canada Line was announced. Same with Brentwood (Millennium Line), Richmond (Canada Line), Coquitlam and Port Moody (West Coast Express & Evergreen Line). Why not use trains to drive and shape growth where it is happening anyway? Not to mention you would be bringing new users into the system, rather than just redirecting existing users onto new routes.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Question I keep asking is what can the LRT offer that the current 96 cannot?

Frequent service? The 96 does that with 7-8 min frequencies.

Capacity? Right now, the current level of ridership doesn't even warrant those 60 FT buses during most hours of the day. In fact, I counted three consecutive 40 FT buses on that route on Saturday, and most of them were at 10-20% capacity.

I don't entirely disagree but you're missing the key concept of "planning ahead." It's like basically saying a service isn't "adequate" unless people are falling out of the windows. And let's be fair here, you are missing the fact (or not taking into account the fact) that the 96-B line is 3 months old. The 99-B wasn't full to capacity over night or from day 1. And let me bold another point, the 99-B line is not 3 months old, it is 17 YEARS old. So don't expect it to be full over night.

In hind sight though given the 99-B today, wouldn't it have been nice if they saved future costs by "planning ahead" when they built the Millenium line and just kept going a bit further to UBC? Would have been nice right?

So just because the 99-B is well over capacity doesn't mean you have to be over capacity and being passed up by 3 busses before you get the next mode of transit. The reason why we're in this crap hole of a transit issue across Metro Vancouver is because our governing bodies and us aswell, react slowly and after the fact instead of doing some forward thinking and planning ahead. People think only beyond the next election. It isn't just transit either. SFPR intersections, GEB toll rates, BC Ferry reductions, the list can go on forever.

The reason why they put the 96-B in place wasn't because they were going to be absolutely full but because we want to start pushing people in Surrey on our major routes to get out of the habit of jumping in their cars to drive 2 blocks. Unfortunately that isn't easy to do when busses came every 15-25 minutes even on major routes. Or in the case when I was going to BCIT a number of years ago, if I didn't get to King George Station to catch the Fraser Highway bus by 6pm, there were NO busses.

Things have changed since then, but they forced me to drive because of stupid things like ^^ that. Meanwhile when I got to metrotown I could grab any bus every 5-10 minutes to anywhere. This again was when Surrey still had more than double the population of Burnaby, yet Burnaby has 2 skytrain lines covering basically tip to tip in the South, and tip to tip in the North. How did it warrant more money and services before it filled its busses up?

Proximity that's all. The only reason people who think investment in Surrey is stupid or a waste of time or in your case, when Surrey has a population of 6.9 million people, is because you perceive it as so far away. Isn't Surrey that village next to Hope out in the Fraser Valley?

So regarding what can LRT offer that BRT can't, I agree to a point that it doesn't offer a lot. It may be marginally faster because it would have a right of way with light timings where busses don't currently. Even the 96-B gets stuck in traffic on 104th or KGB which can delay it quite a bit during rush hour. The other thing is the 96-B isn't full because it only stops at I think 5 of 12 bus stops along King George as an example. So you have 7 or something that the 96-B drives right by so you end up with a scenario where the 96-B is 20% full yet the 321 right behind it that stops everywhere is full or has room for 2 people standing in it.

I think RRT is absolutely overkill though as I pointed out in my previous post. But please stop with this notion that until Surrey has a population of 7 million and has highrises next to each other lining KGB, that it doesn't deserver at least some transit of some sort, and that just because Broadway and UBC has taken this long, we should be punished.

This is exactly why Surrey is pushing forward with a middle finger to Translink and the rest of the region.

Are we really kidding ourselves here that a bus on rails will attract 3x the riders down the King George Blvd and 104th Corridors? The arrogant engineers and transportation planners seem to think so, citing both the Seattle and Portland LRT as examples of a successful systems in its infancy.

There are some truths to their notion but in this point I do agree with you. I think what you're illustrating is bad transit planning something I've always been against. I dislike the notion of building transit for 1) just the sake of building it and 2) just for the purpose of replacing cars and getting people from Surrey to Vancouver as quickly as possible.

I am a firm believer that in lock step with better infrastructure, Surrey ABSOLUTELY has to be encouraging citizens (and to a smaller degree those outside Surrey) to want to stay here not just to sleep or buy groceries at the superstore on the way home. I've pointed out the fact that we are the only city center in Metro Vancouver that doesn't even have a single movie theater screen! How crazy is that?

So firmly agree with you. If you just build transit all you're doing is moving a person from 1 mode to the next and as much as environmentalist like to point out the cost of cars to society, transit has cost too, different costs, but costs none the less. If it didn't, we wouldn't constantly have funding shortfalls to support the full subsidized transit system that can't function on its own without a giant crutch </sarcasm to people that think transit will solve the world's issues>.

Two issues here: First off, Surrey is a suburb, lacking an entertainment district (no arenas or entertainment venues), top tier universities (SFU Surrey is puny), and a central business district. Secondly, Surrey is lacking a transit oriented culture, perhaps the utter most essential requirement for any successful rapid transit network. Many bus routes down these corridors were only added the FTN in the mid-late 2000’s.

Another good point, though I'm not sure you really needed to make it sound a bit childish with the little side jabs. I mean really, SFU Surrey is puny? I guess like BCIT Vancouver, or UBC Vanco... wait there is no UBC in Vancouver, it's completely outside the city limits... woops that means if we want to be technical and say SFU SURREY vs SFU um period, we have to point out Vancouver technically has no Universities based in its city limits paying taxes or fees to its citizens.

I'm with you with lacking an entertainment district and central business district though, unless you count industry as business (which is kind of is but not in the way you're implying the term).

Now your second point, I'm not entirely on par with. It's a chicken vs the egg circular point you make which really doesn't say much. So Surrey doesn't have a transit culture. Ok granted. SO what comes first? People magically altering their daily lives and reducing car use? But wait, there is poor transit throughout much of Surrey? So they won't until their is better transit. But no we can't build better transit until people use it more! But people won't use it more until there is better transit... big circle.

Surrey does have a large part of blame to play in this though which is why I've never been fully on side with our Council's drive of woe is me everything Transit. It isn't Translink for example that says yes Developer XYZ can build another townhouse complex that has 150 units on 1 acre in the middle of nowhere next to the US border with little to no services around it. Surrey council yes sure go ahead! because it is $$$ in their pocket and who says no to $$$ right?

So to me it is a bit like the obese person complaining they are obese while chowing down on a slab of cake.

But at the same time, you can't expect transit ridership or the 'culture' to change by not doing anything either. Vancouver had the benefit of being the #1 major city outside of New Westminster in the region. It had street cars and trolly busses before there was a 2 lane bridge over to Surrey last century! It built a giant grid city with back alleys and provisioned to become a dense downtown eventually from the get go. Surrey started out as a collection of saw mills and farms, we weren't so fortunate.

Heck within my lifetime just 20 years ago when I was a kid, I lived on King George 10 minutes away from Surrey Central which was "Whalley" back then only, and had a giant 15 acre field and farm outside my back yard with cows and horses! When's the last time you've seen a farm in Vancouver?

So you have a head start with this 'transit culture.' Again you can't just load all the blame on Surrey or its citizens for not being quite so fast as its 107 year older brother Vancouver... yes 107 years. Remember Surrey only met the requirements to qualify as a city in 1993. Ultimately I think we've come along very well in a short period of time. Are their issues and have some mis-steps been made? Absolutely. But we haven't had 100 extra years to get the kinks out sorry.

Remember, Surrey = 2.75 times the land mass of Vancouver yet in just 1981 the population difference was 147,138 (Surrey) to 414,281 (Vancouver). Heck Vancouver had 147,000 people in 1925!!! So please give us a bit of slack here. I'm sure you also expect a 10 year old to get an passing grade on a Quantum Physics final exam right?

I do firmly believe that Skytrain do attract riders. It's no coincidence why the best performing routes in Surrey all connect to a skytrain station.

Absolutely agree. It's part perception (Skytrain is seen as quicker) but also part reality that it actually is quicker period. I for one happen to think LRT trains can be loud and obnoxious actually. That was the first thing I noticed in Portland when I was there for the first time many years ago. I thought "I wouldn't want to live within 5 blocks of those damned trains". They're not only loud but being on the ground and weighing so much they actually physically vibrate everything around them and every building when they go by. SkyTrain makes noise too don't get me wrong, but I can see the King George station from my balcony and am less than a block away and for the most part unless I'm really listening, can't hear it at all, only when it changes tracks to do the reversal at the end.

But SkyTrain is expensive and is our backbone network which is why I firmly think the next 2 SkyTrain lines should absolutely be restricted to VCC/Clark to UBC and then King George to Langley. Nothing more, nothing less at this stage. Evergreen is another case and point. It isn't a train for Coquitlam so much as it is an extension of the backbone so the rest of Metro Vancouver can reach Port Moody and Coquitlam, and vice versa for them to us.

If Surrey wants to build LRT and can get the money to do that internal, I'm all for it though. Will it be better than the B-Line? I don't know. I refer back to my previous post on this topic for my opinions on this all.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I can agree with that.

I figured we were on the same page, I just didn't know how to communicate it right.

Originally Posted by 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

Yours went through Guildford, didn't it?

A full loop would be exceedingly expensive right now, especially if Skytrain gets a Langley extension as well. That would be too much rapid transit at once, both literally an politically. For all the complaints that south of Fraser doesn't get enough attention, throwing 50km of trackage at them would be too much. That's why I suggested building the loop in stages, much as other lines have been built in stages.

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.

Creates a needless choke point. I understand that different sections of the line would get different usage. What works in the lines favour is that the density of usage gets consistently lower as you head east. As it is there are trains that run shorter than the full length. That could continue.

It could work the other way as well. I am doubtful that everyone in Langley would be heading to Vancouver, if they do I think they'd be better served by heavy rail transit. Even if the only option is Skytrain, Langley wouldn't warrant a 4 or 6 car train every 108 seconds. Many trains would turn around in Surrey, even after the short-turns in Vancouver, Burnaby, and the branch at Columbia. This leaves Langley with longer wait times so as to ensure best usage of available train sets. But there is a solution that looks like your idea of two 20km lines.

So far as I know, Millennium will still interline with Expo until Columbia station. This means that due to the nature of the system, Surrey side will never have trains running at peak capacity. So have the standard size train sets running primarily as far as King George or a future Fleetwood station, with every 4th train running as far as Langley for an end-end run. This would serve those who wish to travel as far as Vancouver. Then for the sake of frequency, have 2 car train sets that run more frequently taking Langley residents to Surrey Central, Gateway, or even Scott Road, whichever is most prudent. This would give rapid access to Surrey, and if you wanted to go further you have the option at either transferring at 1 of 4, 5, or 6 Surrey stations; or, you could simply wait for that 1 in 4, 4 or 6 car Vancouver-bound train set.

It might seem complicated, but it is nothing the automated system couldn't handle. As much as I hate interlining, it is one of the perks that can be drawn from having the line interlined north of Fraser.

[GMasterAres]

I just realized I referred to one of my "previous posts" but in fact made the post in the Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion sticky not this actually thread. In a nutshell summary of my post in there it was three options, of which I feel the best and most likely is option 2. If you want the full post, page 567.

Best option:

1. SkyTrain Loop from Guildford through Surrey Central to Newton, with option to expand in 10-15 years to South Surrey.
2. Move 96-B line after construction to be Newton <> South Surrey until SkyTrain expansion makes sense
3. Extend Expo Line to Langley down Fraser Highway

Good option:

1. LRT loop from Guildford through Surrey Central to Newton, with option to expand in 10-15 years to South Surrey.
2. Move 96-B line after construction to be Newton <> South Surrey until LRT expansion makes sense
3. Maintain all current lanes of traffic with the LRT introductions, so 2 lanes either direction on KGB and 104th
4. Extend Expo Line to Langley down Fraser Highway

Ok option:

1. LRT loop from Guildford through Surrey Central to Newton, with option to expand in 10-15 years to South Surrey.
2. Maintain all current lanes of traffic with the LRT introductions, so 2 lanes either direction on KGB and 104th
3. Move 96-B line after construction to be Surrey Central <> Langley until SkyTrain expansion can be done for Expo line
4. Increase bus service between South Surrey and Newton LRT station by repurposing the 321 bus as it wouldn't need to do Newton -> Surrey Central anymore with LRT

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

I figured we were on the same page, I just didn't know how to communicate it right.



Yours went through Guildford, didn't it?

A full loop would be exceedingly expensive right now, especially if Skytrain gets a Langley extension as well. That would be too much rapid transit at once, both literally an politically. For all the complaints that south of Fraser doesn't get enough attention, throwing 50km of trackage at them would be too much. That's why I suggested building the loop in stages, much as other lines have been built in stages.

Couldn't agree more. Those of us South of Fraser can't expect the moon overnight and there is a balance between what is needed, what should be done reasonably for the future, and overkill. I mean we may need 50 lines in 100 years from now, but we're certainly not going to plan that far ahead and build it all today.

So we have to be reasonable. I still stick by my firm believe that at most for SkyTrain extension we should get an Expo extension from KGB to Langley and that is it for SkyTrain either at the same time or after the UBC extension is started. Everything else can be BRT or LRT then in the future 10-15 years when it is required, replace with SkyTrain or something else.

Would be be lovely to have a million SkyTrains everywhere? Sure and I'd love to teleport too instead of needing to walk anywhere.

Creates a needless choke point. I understand that different sections of the line would get different usage. What works in the lines favour is that the density of usage gets consistently lower as you head east. As it is there are trains that run shorter than the full length. That could continue.

I don't think splitting the Expo line in partially 2 would really be an issue actually. Firstly Scott Road Station can serve as a terminus station. So when a train on Millenium comes into Columbia in order to turn around and head back effectively preventing an Expo Line train from heading to Vancouver, that Expo Line Train could just turn around at Scott Road and head back towards Langley.

This could accomplish three things.

1. You would have full capacity for Expo Line between Langley and Surrey. This would further encourage dense development in Surrey Central and along that line because it would effectively put up a semi-transit wall between North of Fraser and South of Fraser.

2. In the same grain, you would have less overall capacity between the regions again focusing the attention for us in the South while not changing anything in the North and driving home the concept that Langley should really be a suburb of Surrey and a bit less, Burnaby, rather than Vancouver.

3. Finally, it would still open up the future possibility of running straight through trains with the expansion of Columbia Station to 4 tracks in the long distant future if the demand ever goes up.

So a bit more complex but I would simply go:

Expo Train 1 = Waterfront -> New Westminster -> Waterfront
Expo Train 2 = Waterfront -> Langley

When Expo Train 1 is at New West, Millennium Line train is at Columbia then heads back towards VCC.

Then the other direction:

Expo Train 1 = Langley -> Scott Road -> Langley
Expo Train 2 = Langley -> Waterfront

When Expo Train 1 is at Scott Road, again Millennium Line train is at Columbia then heads back towards VCC.

When capacity is required for full through systems in 10-15 years, you simply built 2 more platforms at Columbia for the Millennium connection train and the Expo trains become full Waterfront -> Langley -> Waterfront.

OR

You do all the above and instead of the turn around at New West, the Waterfront train becomes Waterfront -> VCC Clark and the through Millennium line doesn't stop at Columbia but goes straight to Waterfront.

Where that starts to bottle neck though is as demand goes up on the Millennium and Expo extension lines. I really think while it may be part a benefit now, the merging of Millennium line with Expo was a stupid idea in the long term and will need to be broken in the future. Especially when you throw Evergreen line in there. Millennium will become impossible to be interwoven between Expo lines to Surrey/Langley and Evergreen Lines between UBC/Coquitlam. Somewhere people will need to do train transfers and you'll have to deal with that odd ball leg between Columbia and Lougheed.

I ultimately think the solution is to decouple Millennium from Expo and have it only link at Columbia then head back. It then alternates with Evergreen and becomes a main line that way. You build the 4 track/platform at Columbia and there the two lines are arguably as "coupled together" as they are today imo and Expo becomes the Watefront to Langley track only.

It could work the other way as well. I am doubtful that everyone in Langley would be heading to Vancouver, if they do I think they'd be better served by heavy rail transit. Even if the only option is Skytrain, Langley wouldn't warrant a 4 or 6 car train every 108 seconds. Many trains would turn around in Surrey, even after the short-turns in Vancouver, Burnaby, and the branch at Columbia. This leaves Langley with longer wait times so as to ensure best usage of available train sets. But there is a solution that looks like your idea of two 20km lines.

Yup see my above point.

So far as I know, Millennium will still interline with Expo until Columbia station.
This means that due to the nature of the system, Surrey side will never have trains running at peak capacity. So have the standard size train sets running primarily as far as King George or a future Fleetwood station, with every 4th train running as far as Langley for an end-end run. This would serve those who wish to travel as far as Vancouver. Then for the sake of frequency, have 2 car train sets that run more frequently taking Langley residents to Surrey Central, Gateway, or even Scott Road, whichever is most prudent. This would give rapid access to Surrey, and if you wanted to go further you have the option at either transferring at 1 of 4, 5, or 6 Surrey stations; or, you could simply wait for that 1 in 4, 4 or 6 car Vancouver-bound train set.

See my point above again on the Surrey side not having peak capacity. Between Vancouver and Langley absolutely it wouldn't. But the whole point is to encourage transit oriented development.

Unfortunately some people seem to think that means getting people out of cars onto trains. But that isn't what transit oriented development actually is. Transit oriented development is to encourage people to commute LESS and not have to go so far for services which tends to be what transit excels at.

So instead of encouraging people in Surrey to find it easier to go to Vancouver every day, we should be encouraging people in Surrey to stay IN Surrey. That's how you slow urban sprawl. You don't make it so easy to get to Vancouver but at the same time you do provide increased transit services.

That's my opinion at least. So my train concept above I think ends up being a bit of the best of both worlds and maintains that peak capacity South of Fraser. We would effectively have the same service between Surrey and Langley as you have between New Westminster and Vancouver, 2 stretches that are largely the same distance (26ish km from Waterfront to Columbia vs 24ish km from Scott Road to Willowbrook).

It might seem complicated, but it is nothing the automated system couldn't handle. As much as I hate interlining, it is one of the perks that can be drawn from having the line interlined north of Fraser.

I don't disagree. I do think it is a fantasy to expect all our lines to be together. You ultimately need to switch at some stage. If I am in Surrey and want to go to Lougheed for example, I have to switch. No choice. And the same from Lougheed to Surrey Central.

So I think it would be better served maintaining similar service, splitting the systems in 2 for the start, and when capacity increases to get more through put, 4 track/platform Columbia so you can have 2 sets of trains in the station on 2 different runs at the same time. But we're talking 15 years or more before that is needed imo.

Could very much get away with just splitting the lines and having 1 Expo train at Scott Road turn around and head back to Langley with the other side either turning around at New West (to do a Millennium shuttle at Columbia) or have that second waterfront train go straight through to Millennium and vice versa.

I mean Surrey today only offers up 50% of the trains along the Columbia to Waterfront stretch as it stands today, I don't think that actually really has to change as I also don't see a billion people jumping onto SkyTrain between Langley and Surrey to require that capacity yet.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by nickinacan

Cut out the ALR and South Surrey and and you have plenty of density to work with. Not to mention that there are many dense points you could use to build rapid transit line along. Even the City has stated that it wouldn't be necessary (yet) to extend to South Surrey.

The 96 B-Line has only been in operation for 3 months. Buses don't drive dense growth, trains do. There was barely any development along the 98 B-Line route until the Canada Line was announced. Same with Brentwood (Millennium Line), Richmond (Canada Line), Coquitlam and Port Moody (West Coast Express & Evergreen Line). Why not use trains to drive and shape growth where it is happening anyway? Not to mention you would be bringing new users into the system, rather than just redirecting existing users onto new routes.

Because I disagree with the argument that rapid transit should be used to drive growth. Rapid transit should be used to transport people, not to make money for a council.

Just so we're on the same page I do support rapid transit in Surrey (I just don't think it's as important right now as people make it sound) provided that it:

• Comes after the UBC extension (Keeping in mind neither line would be of any use to me)
• Is grade separated Bombardier SkyTrain

Honestly my biggest fear in ongoing Vancouver area urbanism issues is that Surrey builds LRT. I actually worry about this constantly (like I cannot overstate how important this is to me ). That's why I question whether Surrey needs this to move people, or simply to encourage development.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Because I disagree with the argument that rapid transit should be used to drive growth. Rapid transit should be used to transport people, not to make money for a council.

Just so we're on the same page I do support rapid transit in Surrey (I just don't think it's as important right now as people make it sound) provided that it:

• Comes after the UBC extension (Keeping in mind neither line would be of any use to me)
• Is grade separated Bombardier SkyTrain

Honestly my biggest fear in ongoing Vancouver area urbanism issues is that Surrey builds LRT. I actually worry about this constantly (like I cannot overstate how important this is to me ). That's why I question whether Surrey needs this to move people, or simply to encourage development.

It isn't about encouraging development, Surrey has plemty development occurring already. It isn't as though all those people moving to Surrey are just camping out in the forest after all.

As far as I am concerned, it really isn't about gaining interest in developing the area for political or financial gain, but rather is about what KIND of developments are currently being built and how land is being used. The entire region wins if Surrey rises. Metro Vancouver wouldn't have appointed Surrey as the second downtown of the region for no reason. It has to be done for the region to keep growing. Vancouver can only develop it's CBD so much more.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by nickinacan

It isn't about encouraging development, Surrey has plemty development occurring already. It isn't as though all those people moving to Surrey are just camping out in the forest after all.

As far as I am concerned, it really isn't about gaining interest in developing the area for political or financial gain, but rather is about what KIND of developments are currently being built and how land is being used. The entire region wins if Surrey rises. Metro Vancouver wouldn't have appointed Surrey as the second downtown of the region for no reason. It has to be done for the region to keep growing. Vancouver can only develop it's CBD so much more.

Again, don't get me wrong, I completely agree and am rooting 100% for Surrey to succeed in this. It's just that people always bring up the fact that LRT is a great tool for development. Well so is SkyTrain, in addition to the fact that it doesn't suck as a transportation offering. That's what I mean when I refer to political/financial gain as you put it-It seems to me that the City of Surrey/Diane Watts wants rapid transit in order to spur development, not move people, so she doesn't care what kind they get.