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

[xd_1771]

It is hardly a last minute decision - they had the B-Line hidden in the online schedule for at least 3 years before they finally "released" it.

I still question how you're able to get to these schedules before the rest of us. But, hey, you were never wrong

[GMasterAres]

Last minute for the 96-B line is in regards to actually implementing it. There is some truth to the notion that had Translink not been pressured into doing it, we could be in 2018 and they'd still be talking about the 96-B line.

Like I said, Translink does a great job of talking and studying about things for decades before actually getting down to making things happen.

So last minute refers to physical buses actually driving up and down the roads. You're correct it has been discussed for years though, but I do believe with Mr Logic previously that Surrey pushing for LRT probably lit the fire under their behinds a bit quicker than they had planned.

Maybe not though could be completely wrong and minus Surrey announcing a bid for LRT 2+ years ago, we very well could have still had 96-B lines showing up when they did 3 months ago. I'm suspiscious we wouldn't have though.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Seriously. I've heard some of the silliest arguments denouncing BRT.
There have been serious talks about implementing the 96 since the late 2011 Moving Forward meetings.

Most people don't read these forums or attend Translink Moving Forward meetings unless they are specifically interested in that topic. Truth is I know about developments in Surrey long before they are announced because I go on the Surrey web site and poke around their planning reports and building permit registries. So typically I know a project (like Bosa for example) is planning to be built 2-4 years before it shows up in the newspaper.

With that said, how many highrises are talked about in the city coffers that get delayed or cancelled during the process before they even hit the Surrey Leader or Vancouver Province?

Same deal here with the 96-B. It is one thing to talk in board meetings for 2-5 years about something, it's another to actually do it and for it to show up on front page. Until it shows up in the newspaper, people don't know about it.

And for the 96-B specifically, they didn't announce it at all from my perspective. I read these forums multiple times a week if not sometimes daily, and poke around the news sites near constantly, and the first I heard of the 96-B being put into service was first when 1 person in a topic posted a picture that read:

"Look what I saw, an articulating bus driving up King George... must be testing for the 96-B finally!"

Then after that, that's all I saw anywhere. Even when it was implemented nobody knew. I didn't even know until I saw a bus go by and had people in it. Was like "Oh wow they actually put it into service." So I agree with the notion that it really wasn't announced at all anywhere in Surrey. And hell I live right next to King George Skytrain station on King George Boulevard. Not to mention my wife takes transit almost exclusively every single day (3 zone monthly pass) and learned about the B-Line 1 full month after it was in service when she just happened to see it go by. She was like "Oh wow... hey I can get up to Michaels near the Superstore easier now!" and that's someone that uses transit all the time here!

We're both people who should have received notice of this new service in some way other than our eyes a month later imo. Hell we find out about when the SFPR is opening MONTHS before it is even paved. Months. And they hadn't even paved it or finished the viaduct and there are notices and radio plugs everywhere talking about the SFPR (and yes I know SFPR isn't Translink but it just illustrates the poor communication for the 96-B line). I even knew about the Main Street service interruptions (shuttle trains) starting soon half a year ago and they keep announcing it, and I don't even ride the bloody SkyTrain that often.

So Translink dropped the ball completely or as has been mentioned, rushed it in really quickly and skipped on the whole marketting and corporate communications angle because that takes time, planning, and money. So I think the line is actually doing pretty good all things considering.

Like I've said on these forums for years, ^^^ is exactly why people have a sour taste with Translink in South of Fraser. It always just seems (remember perception again) that we are slow to receive anything even when we contribute a lion's share of funding and when we DO receive new service, it seems like it is just a rush job and afterthought to shut us up.

Translink: "Oh here is the 96-B line now shut up about us not providing service to Surrey! Back to planning the new SkyTrain out to Squamish."

[nname]

Well, the 91 B-Line (41st Ave) and 95 B-Line (Hastings) are still nowhere to be found, and the target implementation date was 2005-2007

[go_leafs_go02]

The reason why the 96 B-Line wasn't publicized...

Translink was worried it would be crush loaded right from the get go, and didn't want to attract additional riders if it couldn't handle the load.

Once it launched, and it was determined there was extra capacity on buses, they began to market it at bus stops with poles, and changing some signs to note it went to Surrey Central.

Now, you'll see typical buses on the B-Line from time to time.

[Canadian Mind]

You think a crush load would be better than under-utilised...

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, the 91 B-Line (41st Ave) and 95 B-Line (Hastings) are still nowhere to be found, and the target implementation date was 2005-2007

Fair enough. Like I said a few post ago though it is perception not reality that drives people. I'm just speaking to what the perception is by most people in South of Fraser. The truth is, as you've pointed out, and heck look at Evergreen, Translink and the Province simply do it everywhere.

I know there are some on these forums that say Translink is doing an outstanding job, and I think given the fact they have 0 to no money and are hemorrhaging in a few areas because the Mayor's have blocked every seemingly sensible method of revenue generation, they have done an ok job.

But they shouldn't promises things they can't keep. Oh wait that happens in politics all the time. The problem with Translink though is unlike our government leaders, we can't vote them out for a new party that may get some stuff done after an election before a number of years later going back full circle to promising and not delivering, rinse and repeat.

Translink can do what they do FOREVER without any real retribution by the people directly affected by their decisions.

Anyway I'm starting to drift a bit off topic. Back to the discussion at hand.

SkyTrain down Fraser Highway, leave BRT in place where it is but if Surrey magically finds money to build an LRT street line, have at it as long as they don't remove any car lanes on 104th. That's my opinion summarized!

[GMasterAres]

And regarding the worrying about crush loads, I'll challenge anyone to point out a time Translink has made number estimates and gotten them right. They are always so far off it is laughable *cough Canada Line, GEB, half the buses out there cough*.

So forgive me if I sigh at the notion they were worried about a crush load. Even if it is the best option for people compared to driving, you're going to take a lot longer than 3 months or even 2 years to get people out of their cars here in Surrey I can tell you that. Certainly wasn't going to happen over night.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

And regarding the worrying about crush loads, I'll challenge anyone to point out a time Translink has made number estimates and gotten them right. They are always so far off it is laughable *cough Canada Line, GEB, half the buses out there cough*.

Crush loads should be a serious concern since their transit numbers are always under (Canada Line) and their driving numbers are over (GEB losing money).

Now we have the PMB, already under projections and the full toll isn't even in effect yet...

[nname]

Originally Posted by jhausner

But they shouldn't promises things they can't keep. Oh wait that happens in politics all the time. The problem with Translink though is unlike our government leaders, we can't vote them out for a new party that may get some stuff done after an election before a number of years later going back full circle to promising and not delivering, rinse and repeat.

I think most of the "promises" now are made by the province (ie. Evergreen Line, Port Mann Rapid Bus) and the city (ie. Surrey LRT). Nowadays, all TransLink's promise are attached with "if funding available, then we'll do this..."

Originally Posted by jhausner

And regarding the worrying about crush loads, I'll challenge anyone to point out a time Translink has made number estimates and gotten them right. They are always so far off it is laughable *cough Canada Line, GEB, half the buses out there cough*.

I agree with GEB but not Canada Line... The original weekday ridership estimate from TransLink back in 2006 were:
2010: 117,600
2014: 126,100
2021: 143,100

And then people, including many in this forums, yelled that the projection is overly optimistic, but in fact it is quite close to the actual number. The actual for a normal 2010 weekday, if I remember correctly, was around 114,000.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by nname

I think most of the "promises" now are made by the province (ie. Evergreen Line, Port Mann Rapid Bus) and the city (ie. Surrey LRT). Nowadays, all TransLink's promise are attached with "if funding available, then we'll do this..."



I agree with GEB but not Canada Line... The original weekday ridership estimate from TransLink back in 2006 were:
2010: 117,600
2014: 126,100
2021: 143,100

And then people, including many in this forums, yelled that the projection is overly optimistic, but in fact it is quite close to the actual number. The actual for a normal 2010 weekday, if I remember correctly, was around 114,000.

Interesting I did not know the Canada Line ridership was so close to projections, I had thought it was way over projections. Since it is so close to projections I hope whoever wrote the P3 for the Province has been fired for allowing the 'base' level of service so low and having such a high cost to add service.

[logicbomb]

@ jhausner @ nickinacan

Of course we cannot eliminate sprawl. It’s a byproduct of living in the most expensive regions in Canada. The issue I have is that Surrey had done little to curb sprawl, and properly design neighborhoods near corridors. Up until the mid-late 2000’s, Surrey was still designing communities without proper sidewalks or neighborhood linking pathways (ie. some new residential developments in Fleetwood). I will give credit where credit is due as I went to a presentation that examined the Clayton Heights developments. It was intended to be a walkable and transit oriented development, unfortunately there is 4-5 cars per household in what is one of the most dense developments along the 3 corridors.

The reason they were is because they were/are needed not because of sprawl. The truth is like I said above, they 1) are/were needed and 2) not building them won't stop sprawl. It hasn't and won't. That's what people just don't get.

It won’t stop sprawl. Though increasing capacity along any highway network and vital linkages accelerate the rate of sprawl. Now, I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t replace these crossings, but doubling capacity without much though of utilizing TDM initiatives? That’s where we have an issue. Again, this is an issue with the Provincial government (MOT), but the City was silent, and never voiced any reservations save for the rapid bus stop.

Surrey Council supported the new bridge as it was ALWAYS shown as a gateway for new transit options between Surrey/Langley and Coquitlam/Burnaby, and eventually some sort of rapid transit. What happened? Translink completely cut Surrey out of the 555 bus. How do you get from Guildford to Coquitlam now? Same as you always have, head to Surrey Central and endure over an hour of transit.

This is why you take anything Translink, but more importantly the Provincial Government with a grain of salt. I informed the Transportation Planner in the City of Surrey about the narrow width of the 156th HOV on/off-ramps, yet they still assumed that a stop would be added somewhere in Surrey. All three sides are at fault here, there was no pressure by the City of Surrey until it was too late. The Provincial Government essentially cut costs with the design and Translink never really cared.

The GMT is nearing the end of its life, it is a massive bottle neck for commuters and commercial traffic. It is the gateway into Vancouver from the South. You would have to be crazy to say that they should not replace it. Maybe the new crossing will be able to handle better commuter options as well.

Surrey complains about transit funding because the city of 500,000 people has helped Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, Richmond and now Port Moody and Coquitlam build up their transit while receiving almost nothing in return from Translink. It is growing exponentially and needs better transit options. Clayton Heights is a dense area and was built out to be transit oriented. Instead, with the lack of transit options in the area, which is along a very busy corridor, is packed with cars on the side streets due to a lack of transit.

The GMT has to be replaced. The fact that we are advocating for a 10 lane monstrosity when the network on the other side won’t be able to handle the increased traffic load is alarming, and demonstrates how short-sighted municipal governments are SoF. It’s a given that the provincial government will always look at the bigger issues at hand, such as the free-flowing movement of goods and container traffic. It’s up to the municipal government to advocate for better TDM initiatives. Moreover, rapid transit should be incorporated into these mega-projects. The fact that the Highway #1 project didn’t include provisions for a future RRT/LRT line was discouraging to see.

We have recently been the recipients of many of Translinks recent transportation improvements (roads and public transit). Many routes were significantly improved, including many routes which were added to the FTN in the past 5 years, mostly at the expense of routes (due to service optimization) on the other side of the Fraser.

If you guys attend any City of Surrey consultation or council meetings, you’ll understand what I’m talking about with regards to some of the “dinosaur logic” that still lingering and preventing us from taking the next step. Some see public transportation as an accessory. This sort of mindset is why we’re here and pushing for a cheaper faster alternative such as LRT in the city, when it may not be the most practical long-term solution.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Rico

Interesting I did not know the Canada Line ridership was so close to projections, I had thought it was way over projections. Since it is so close to projections I hope whoever wrote the P3 for the Province has been fired for allowing the 'base' level of service so low and having such a high cost to add service.

I'm not sure there is a high cost to add service due to P3, I've never seen any information shared on this forum to suggest that. I think it is just a fact that Translink has no money available to accelerate the service schedule for the Canada Line. Adding service to the other lines through BCRTC would have a cost as well. There's nothing free about BCRTC, and no sign that things cost more through ProTrans.

The ridership estimates are pretty low. In June 2011 Canada Line weekday was at 136,000 (source Translink). Compare that to the estimates quoted by nname above. Ridership is probably 5 years ahead of estimates at this point.

[nname]

That was June 2011 - the year when the Canucks went deep into the playoffs, the downtown celebrations, and then the riot... Of course the ridership will be much higher that month. I filtered that out on purpose as it does not reflect the true ridership level.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by nname

That was June 2011 - the year when the Canucks went deep into the playoffs, the downtown celebrations, and then the riot... Of course the ridership will be much higher that month. I filtered that out on purpose as it does not reflect the true ridership level.

So can you cite your sources?

From May 2013:

http://www.vancouversun.com/Canada+Line+...sh+hour+riders+fuming/8329895/story.html

Ridership on the Canada Line has grown steadily since an explosion of traffic during the 2010 Olympics and now has a daily ridership of over 120,000.

From Wikipedia:

Before the building of the line, TransLink had projected that it would require a 100,000 passenger/day average to reach the "break even point". They also projected that it would take about three years for capacity to reach this point and that TransLink would be responsible for the loss. However, the Canada Line reached its projected ridership goal in late 2010, three years early

System boardings in 2012 were over 40 million:

http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/TransitRidership.pdf

Averaged over 365 days that's 114,632/day...

So who should be fired, exactly?

[nname]

The projection was from the RTM document Look at both the phase A and the Evergreen as SkyTrain document.

PS. The projection are for weekday riders. Its quite ambiguous to say "daily riders" since in most case it meant "weekdays", but not sure what's the case there...

[logan5]

All these numbers area little confusing. Are some of these week day average and others week-end included average?

Originally Posted by nname

That was June 2011 - the year when the Canucks went deep into the playoffs, the downtown celebrations, and then the riot... Of course the ridership will be much higher that month. I filtered that out on purpose as it does not reflect the true ridership level.

You're correct in saying the play-off games inflated the number, but not by much. Even if the game drew 15 000 Canada line riders per week-day games (x3), that avearges out to 2045 per day, when divided by 22 week-days. Plus student ridership drops off a cliff in the middle of June, so that cancels out the hockey ridership a little bit.

[xd_1771]

I informed the Transportation Planner in the City of Surrey about the narrow width of the 156th HOV on/off-ramps, yet they still assumed that a stop would be added somewhere in Surrey. All three sides are at fault here, there was no pressure by the City of Surrey until it was too late. The Provincial Government essentially cut costs with the design and Translink never really cared.

I've been in constant contact with Surrey staff and other people involved about this and there's already a plan being moved forward to construct a stop on the near-side of the HOV ramps at an estimated cost of $300,000 for the full package (accessible stop + shelters + lighting, etc). It's just a matter of funding.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

You're correct in saying the play-off games inflated the number, but not by much. Even if the game drew 15 000 Canada line riders per week-day games (x3), that avearges out to 2045 per day, when divided by 22 week-days. Plus student ridership drops off a cliff in the middle of June, so that cancels out the hockey ridership a little bit.

The boarding for all 3 SkyTrain lines combined for that month is about 1 to 1.5 million above average for typical summer months Apr to Aug. It was the month with second-most riders ever for the system, behind Feb 2010, obviously. The third-highest was a few months later at Oct 2011, and the boarding count was more than 500k lower.

(Source)

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by nname

I think most of the "promises" now are made by the province (ie. Evergreen Line, Port Mann Rapid Bus) and the city (ie. Surrey LRT). Nowadays, all TransLink's promise are attached with "if funding available, then we'll do this..."

Good point.

I agree with GEB but not Canada Line... The original weekday ridership estimate from TransLink back in 2006 were:
2010: 117,600
2014: 126,100
2021: 143,100

And then people, including many in this forums, yelled that the projection is overly optimistic, but in fact it is quite close to the actual number. The actual for a normal 2010 weekday, if I remember correctly, was around 114,000.

This is where I'm a little confused because we don't really ever find statistics about the 'normal weekday.' The only stats I've ever been able to find are from their quartlery and year end financial reports which simply say how many boardings total. So it averages out weekends too.

2010: 38,447,725 (105336 per day)
2011: 39,668,773 (108681 per day)
2012: 40,832,738 (111870 per day)

Now if we look at:

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Medi...-ridership-heading-for-a-new-record.aspx

It states Canada Line average weekday bordings as of June 2011 was 136,259.

So doing some math:
1. 136259 x 260 (work days) = 35,427,340
2. 35,427,340 / 39,668,773 = 89.3% of total ridership is weekday
3. 40,832,738 * 89.3% = 36,466,852
4. 36,466,852 / 260 (work days) = 140,257 per average work day

So based on those numbers above from Translink both times, and doing a bit of math, in 2012 the average week day passenger count is very nearly the projected number for 2021.

Side by side:

Projected based on the 2006 numbers
2010: 117,600
2011: 119,725
2012: 121,850
2013: 123,975
2014: 126,100

Actual as of 2013:
2010: 132,053
2011: 136,259
2012: 140,257
2013: 144,355 (projected as of November 2013)

So I don't know about you but that tells me we're 9 years too early and already starting to push towards 2025 numbers...

Then ok I tip my hat to the previous poster about worries about a crush of riders. If they though the 96-B line with a lot of promotion would have been absolutely jam packed, I think in reality next year we should be seeing the 96-B buses during the week looking like something out of India with people riding the roof.

Sarcasm aside, I think the above illustrated my point that Translink and projected numbers don't really seem to mix. They're not very good at predicting the future which is probably why many of us are complaining they don't plan for the future. I tip my hat again to the fact they have realized they are crap at predicting the future so they just don't plan ahead...

</sarcam again>