Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[officedweller]

The 16th Ave. route could be a rush hour "express" routing.

[DKaz]

The Arbutus to UBC portion of the route is the quickest portion of the route during rush hour though relative to the late night travel time. It's the Arbutus to Main portion that's the slowest, followed by the Main to Commercial Dr portion.

[gkz]

I think the Broadway line is distracting from the real issue at hand: Surrey's terrible plan to implement LRT. It has a worse cost benefit ratio than RRT, slower travel times, fewer daily riders, and half as many new daily transit users.

Why does Surrey support an inferior plan?

[nname]

quantity > quality

[gillty]

Key Assumptions:
• B-Line services (99) on the segment between Commercial Drive and Arbutus would be discontinued upon
introduction of rapid transit.
• B-Line service from Arbutus to UBC would be retained until full build-out of rail to UBC. At Arbutus, a
facility accommodating about two thirds of the current layover space at Commercial-Broadway would be
required. Enhancements to the B-Line services between Arbutus and UBC will also be pursued to ensure
efficient transit operations until the rapid transit is implemented to UBC.
• There are options for how rapid transit is completed between Arbutus and UBC in the second phase, as
identified in the UBC Line rapid transit study: either by a Light Rail connection or a continuation of
SkyTrain. If SkyTrain is eventually extended to UBC, there will be additional costs associated with the first
phase, in order to build track west of Arbutus to allow for the UBC extension without impacting
operations. This additional cost is estimated at $100 million and has not been included in cost estimates.

from Apendix A-62.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by gkz

I think the Broadway line is distracting from the real issue at hand: Surrey's terrible plan to implement LRT. It has a worse cost benefit ratio than RRT, slower travel times, fewer daily riders, and half as many new daily transit users.

Why does Surrey support an inferior plan?

Cause of these common misconceptions:
1) Surrey has wide roads to accommodate LRT.

In reality, both Fraser Highway and 104th would require a reduction in lanes to accommodate an LRT. The alternative of course is to demolish neighboring structures....which becomes costly.

2) People here all drive and buses are running empty

The 319/502 is always packed, even during the evening hours. Fine, the 96 B Line has been a failure from the start and most buses (even the 40fters) are running empty outside of rush hour, but I have no clue what Translink was thinking when they opted to go with 7-8 min frequencies when the 99 B Line doesn’t even see that during the evening hours. Stupid on their part.

3) The three corridors that are being studied all transect through low-density neighborhoods.





It seems like all stakeholders involved just want to build an LRT line for the sake of completing a project in Surrey

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by nname

quantity > quality

Actually I feel it's the sway of Watts and everyone's ability to hide the serious LRT business case shortfalls

The funny thing is, the new report shows that the LRT1 capital cost has ballooned to $2.44 billion. I ran a calculation and when 20-year operating costs are considered, it actually now costs less to extend the Expo Line both to Langley AND to Newton than to build this LRT.

It seems like all stakeholders involved just want to build an LRT line for the sake of completing a project in Surrey

This. The South of Fraser's whole gripe is the years and years of having no projects completed here - and I'm really sad that it's gone to the point where everyone's now rooting for a project that isn't really the most efficient use of people's money, but apparently brings the most "rail". The whole report downplays the difference between at-grade (LRT) and grade-separated (SkyTrain), as if the difference were nonexistent. It doesn't inform us that 96 B-Line riders are only saving <5 minutes end-to-end or that the ridership could've been better with the other (SkyTrain) alternative.

I'm betting on these reasons: Watts at the helm, and the LRT-motivated city staff I have spoken to many times also... being at the helm. They believe in at-grade just a little too much. I have spoken with several city staff who were actually working to try and shift things towards LRT. With this setup of people, nothing else gets through in spite of the practicality.

Honestly, from this vantage point, I find the whole thing to be so politically-motivated. It's not just the Surrey LRT, which I've always had a gripe with, that I have an issue with in this plan. I can see much better progress throughout the region if many of these proposed B-Lines were first introduced as 43-like peak hour/weekday express routes. At the end of the day, on many of these corridors, for the cost of the express route every 10 minutes + local every 15 minutes in the evening, you could run the local every what, 6 minutes - and having the more frequent local setup is actually faster for people. If the corridor anchors don't have much of a regional pull OR there are currently good alternatives, that corridor usually doesn't warrant much of an express service off-peak. I mean, look at the 130. Now only every 30 minutes after 9:30, and for good reasons.

In the spirit of good transit planning and being efficient with our money, I'm hoping that whatever gets implemented in the next 30 years ends up looking nothing like this and is controlled a bit. $7.5 + $600m yearly is lots of money they want to throw at transit - and I think it can do more.

[queetz@home]

The 104th - KGB corridor has always been identified as a future rapid transit route since the days of the LRSP. So the plan to have LRT there is quite sound, I cannot imagine Skytrain ever be implemented properly on that route. I personally have reservations regarding Fraser Highway though, and if it were up to me, I would just extend Skytrain to Fleetwood and BRT the rest.

I cannot understand this hatred towards surface LRT other than extreme local bias towards the familiar Skytrain, and I think even if money is not an issue, LRT at 104th and KGB and Skytrain up to Fleetwood with BRT to Langley would be ideal.

[gkz]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I cannot understand this hatred towards surface LRT other than extreme local bias towards the familiar Skytrain...

This isn't about Skytrain or any other particular technology, this is about at-grade vs. grade-separated. In Metro Vancouver we tend to call grade-separated rapid transit Skytrain, regardless if it is actually Skytrain or not (eg. The Canada Line is not Skytrain, but most people call it that anyway).

At-grade LRT is very expensive, and will provide few benefits. Grade-separated rapid transit is clearly the way to go, with improved travel times, higher ridership, and all at a similar cost to the inferior at-grade option.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I cannot understand this hatred towards surface LRT other than extreme local bias towards the familiar Skytrain

That means you either haven't thought about this much, or you're exaggerating to get a rise out of people. I think LRT has a few advantages over buses, but the disadvantages are obvious:

LRT is just as slow as buses, and less flexible. Buses can drive around accidents in their current lane, surface rail can't.

The capital costs are much larger than for buses, and many people aren't convinced that the lower operational costs justify those additional capital costs.

On preview, gkz has it.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by gkz

This isn't about Skytrain or any other particular technology, this is about at-grade vs. grade-separated. In Metro Vancouver we tend to call grade-separated rapid transit Skytrain, regardless if it is actually Skytrain or not (eg. The Canada Line is not Skytrain).

At-grade LRT is very expensive, and will provide few benefits. Grade-separated rapid transit is clearly the way to go, with improved travel times, higher ridership, and all at a similar cost to the inferior at-grade option.

You can grade separate BRT too, as well as conventional LRT (i.e. Canada Line as you pointed out). If at grade LRT is very expensive, how come the amount of LRT that would be built in Surrey is much more expansive than the amount of "grade separation" for the Broadway Corridor?

People balk at the $2.4 billion Surrey LRT compared to the $1.9 billion Broadway extension but have anyone counted how much coverage each line would provide?

It maybe "quantity vs quality", but in this case, quantity is much more needed to reach more people.

[xd_1771]

^ It's a simple matter: On those lines, you have tunnels, and that is a whole different dimension. You also have different travel markets, travel patterns, established areas. If just about all of urbanized Fraser Highway were as dense and developed as Broadway? Then I have no doubt the capital cost would be much closer to $4 billion for LRT and $6 billion for underground SkyTrain.

[gkz]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

You can grade separate BRT too, as well as conventional LRT (i.e. Canada Line as you pointed out). If at grade LRT is very expensive, how come the amount of LRT that would be built in Surrey is much more expansive than the amount of "grade separation" for the Broadway Corridor?

People balk at the $2.4 billion Surrey LRT compared to the $1.9 billion Broadway extension but have anyone counted how much coverage each line would provide?

It maybe "quantity vs quality", but in this case, quantity is much more needed to reach more people.

I would rather that we expand the grade-separated network initially, and cover the rest of the areas with rapid buses. As more money becomes available, we can expand the grade-separated network to cover the rest of the area.

I think this is the better choice than doing at-grade LRT, blowing all the money and permanently removing the chance to have a grade-separated network in the future.

Translink's own findings estimate that expanding the grade-separated Skytrain down the Fraser Highway and implementing BRT on 104 and KGB will cost the same as doing at-grade LRT on those same sections. The difference is that the grade-separated Skytrain will provide better service to those along the Fraser highway, while leaving the door open for 104 and KGB to be upgraded to grade-separated in the future (In the meantime, is at-grade BRT that much worse than at-grade LRT along KGB and 104? Enough so that it is worth having much worse service on the Fraser Highway? I don't think so.)

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...y_%20alternatives_analysis_findings.ashx

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by gkz

I think this is the better choice than doing at-grade LRT, blowing all the money and permanently removing the chance to have a grade-separated network in the future.

Exactly.

LRT is very successful around the world for various area-specific reasons. Here the area specific-reasons just do not favour LRT no matter how you look at it.

I mean, look at 104 Ave. It already has a fairly frequent service that can get you from Guildford to Surrey Central in 6-8 minutes (337) on top of the 96, which'd have to be cut in favour of the LRT. It's well utilized (fastest growing ridership of any Surrey route!) and isn't going anywhere. The 96 is already outrunning the proposed LRT during off-peak hours and almost matching it in peak, and it doesn't have 3-door-boarding yet. Tram capacity is not needed - the projected demand on 104 (Surrey Rapid Transit Study) wouldn't even warrant a double-articulated-bus BRT. In the next 20-30 years, it's likely better to not build any sort of "rapid transit" on 104, instead sticking to smaller investments like better synced signals and occasional queue jumper lanes to keep things moving. An LRT will save 96 riders 1 minute, and cost 337 riders several just to get where they need to go - on top of hundreds of millions of dollars in capital and operating.

The quality transit operations to get people out of their cars is kind of already in place on 104th (in that it doesn't get much better, unless you build SkyTrain which no one apparently seems to justify) - the sad fact is LRT there offers just about no improvement, and the severe transit penalty during construction is likely going to get a lot of riders to just permanently stop riding even when the final LRT is built.

The report, our decision makers, and everyone involved... they just aren't thinking about/looking at these important details. It's all about "We just want to build rail and get it over with cause we want something, damnit."

[memememe76]

Originally Posted by gkz

I would rather that we expand the grade-separated network initially, and cover the rest of the areas with rapid buses. As more money becomes available, we can expand the grade-separated network to cover the rest of the area.

I think this is the better choice than doing at-grade LRT, blowing all the money and permanently removing the chance to have a grade-separated network in the future.

I would agree. With a Skytrain extension, getting on Guildford Station to something like Burrard Station would be a dream. With LRT, I would still have to depart at Surrey Central to get on the Skytrain. This is no different than bus. Worse, I can't see the time difference being that different. And, how close can a LRT station be to the Surrey Central Platform? Certainly, it would be a longer walk than the distance between the platform and bus loop.

I would really hesitate declaring the 96B a failure. I think it still needs a lot of time. I have to admit, the lack of density at any one bus stop hurts the 96B. Now that I just very recently realized that the Translink app will tell me how soon the 320 will reach my closest bus stop (OMG, love it--how didn't I know about this before?!?!), I don't use the 96B to get to the Skytrain.

But when I return to Guildford from Surrey Central Stn, I will just automatically go to the 96B stop. The frequencies are such that a wait is never that long. And I will say that more and more people are taking this bus.

But ugh at a tolled Patullo and distance-based fees. Why are the SoF mayors in favour of this?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

LRT is a big waste of money because it doesn't change what buses already do, you know other then taking away road space and wasting billions of dollars.

I'm an avid car driver. I'm not a fan of public transit in general. i always hated taking the bus. but when the Canada Line was built i think that was a major improvement over the 98b-line. i have even taken the Canada Line a few times since out of choice since it is so fast.

LRT, offering no time difference, would not get me to take public transit. and i am sure a lot of avid car drivers like myself feel the same. it is just a stupid waste of billions of dollars for literally no time difference. to get me to take the bus over a car there has to be an incentive, like time saving. with LRT there goes that incentive. so there goes me taking public transit. and i am sure many feel the same way as me.

[queetz@home]

Hundreds of cities around the world of all shapes and sizes have embraced surface LRT, streetcars, trams and so on. Some even much more denser with even more excellent urban planning than Surrey is as of today. I think the people who run those cities and their planning departments have far more credibility than a few arm chair analysts in this forum.

Surrey is progressing, no doubt about it. And the leadership of Dianne Watts have ensured that the city will do quite well in the future. And guess what? They are the ones that are pushing for surface LRT, and I would rather trust their judgement than people who are clearly biased.

If you really want Skytrain for Surrey, then perhaps those who think they know better than the people who is running the city and making the big decisions should run for office or try to get a job at the city planning department. Even putting your name in a ballot box is a first step...

[quobobo]

Hundreds of cities around the world of all shapes and sizes have embraced surface LRT, streetcars, trams and so on.

And even more have embraced suburban sprawl and the dominance of the car. Should we take lessons from their planning departments?

"Other cities do this" is not a great way to advocate for anything.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Hundreds of cities around the world of all shapes and sizes have embraced surface LRT, streetcars, trams and so on. Some even much more denser with even more excellent urban planning than Surrey is as of today. I think the people who run those cities and their planning departments have far more credibility than a few arm chair analysts in this forum.

Surrey is progressing, no doubt about it. And the leadership of Dianne Watts have ensured that the city will do quite well in the future. And guess what? They are the ones that are pushing for surface LRT, and I would rather trust their judgement than people who are clearly biased.

If you really want Skytrain for Surrey, then perhaps those who think they know better than the people who is running the city and making the big decisions should run for office or try to get a job at the city planning department. Even putting your name in a ballot box is a first step...

Name me 5 denser cities that use LRT as the backbone of their rapid transit network without grade separated alternatives...successfully. Skytrain down KGB or Fraser Highway would cost about 80 mill per km, including stations. A line from King George station to Langley + a line from King George station to Newton + a line from King George station to Guildford would equal roughly 27km. Using Skytrain you should be able to build that for as little as 2.1 billion given the wide ROW's and low density, no need for tunnels and little need for land expropriation (its basically as easy as it gets). Even easier then the Millenium line and Evergreen line minus the tunnel. Of course grade separated skytrain would result in a significantly more user friendly, community friendly, efficient, faster, reliable transit system, and it would not take out multiple traffic lanes nor widen the ROW that pedestrians need to cross.

Anyways name me 5 cities, maybe I am just behind the times.

[gkz]

I just sent an email to Christy Clark at [email protected] in support of grade-separated Skytrain rather than at-grade LRT for Surrey. I encourage all of you who care about the issue to email her with your opinion as well.

Further thoughts on the LRT plan:
- It will permanently exclude surrounding communities such as Langley from the regional rapid transit network - is that fair?
- It will be more disruptive than grade-separated Skytrain to vehicles (businesses and people who cannot or will not take transit), both during construction and after