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

[AForce]

Work is almost done on the buse que jumper lanes on the intersections at King George and 88ave & 72ave. Lets see if this increases riders

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by officedweller

At least it only mentioned 104 and King George Highway - not Fraser Highway.

The City of Surrey wants LRT down Fraser Highway too. They have been contracting out survey crew to examine Fraser Highway.

Imagine the chaos that would ensue when we reduce 104th to 2 lanes.
The City of Surrey has even stated that there is absolutely no room on 104th for 4 lanes + LRT without extensive property acquisition. We would lose all express buses (337, 509, 590) and force those commuters to make an addition transfer and add 7-10 minutes to their commute.

The logic here is that we must create a regional transportation network for Surrey (LRT). Thing is, we might be decades away from seeing that illusive Central Business District in Surrey. Most commuters will still be Vancouver/Burnaby bound in the meantime and we must take that into account.

[nname]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's not like Surrey's potential rapid transit corridors are exactly bursting at the seams right now anyway. If a B-Line conversion to RRT once it is warranted can work in the rest of the region, it can certainly work in Surrey, rather than succumbing to the worst trend in urban planning right now.

The December schedule shows a ~10% cut in service for the 96 B-Line. Buses now run every 9min (instead of 8min) throughout the day and 12min (instead of 8-10min) in late evenings.

[Millennium2002]

9 minute service? Serious? The line appears more full during brush hour than before...

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

9 minute service? Serious? The line appears more full during brush hour than before...

It is usually running full during peak-hour before. I was left behind @ Surrey Central last Friday because a 300m line formed and packed two buses. Translink is clueless, these changes were warranted when the line was first implemented...they should be beefing up service during peak-hours, not reducing it. I will probably just take the 337 (comes every 15 min during peak-hour and goes non-stop without any crazy lines) from now on to get to Guildford.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The logic here is that we must create a regional transportation network for Surrey (LRT). Thing is, we might be decades away from seeing that illusive Central Business District in Surrey. Most commuters will still be Vancouver/Burnaby bound in the meantime and we must take that into account.

It seems that if Surrey get's it way with the feds one of two scenarios is going to happen:
1) The Feds will require it to be a P3P project (and we all see how bad of an idea that is) which means the cheapest option that meets todays demand, not future demand.
2) If Surrey doesn't go with Translink's best option (RRT+BRT), then Translink should refuse to be on the hook for operating it. Surrey should have to pay Translink to operate it, or operate it themselves.

Like, as much as I hate the current LRT proposals, I want to see the Skytrain itself go all the way to Langley, and would likely not care as much if the transit lines that only service Surrey are LRT as long as Translink isn't on the hook for operating it, much in the same way the Blue bus is.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by nname

The December schedule shows a ~10% cut in service for the 96 B-Line. Buses now run every 9min (instead of 8min) throughout the day and 12min (instead of 8-10min) in late evenings.

Have they released the December service changes already? I can't find them on the website. Do you have a link?

Either way, that's unfortunate, especially if like people are saying the route is actually getting fairly popular. Still, the 97 doesn't come all that often either.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Not sure if this is anything new or not.



http://www.cknw.com/2014/10/27/plans-for-light/

Notice how it says "along 104th and KGB". Makes no mention about Fraser Hwy. I still stick with the stance (and I am sure Surrey does too) that RRT aka SkyTrain is the only true option down Fraser Hwy to Langley.

LRT down the others is AOK with me as if they can add the money to do that instead of just BRT, I won't complain. I don't think it is entirely required yet because there are large stretches of no density along KGB currently. Fraser Hwy actually has quite a bit more density than KGB and even 104th if you really look at the density map and just Google.

But *shrug* if they come up with more money to make an LRT line down KGB and 104th (as long as they don't net reduce traffic lanes for cars) I am AOK with it.

[memememe76]

I am so sad about the lowered frequency of the 96B. How does it make any different from 320 or 321?

[GlassCity]

My problem with street running LRT is that it does very little for actual transportation benefits for how much it costs. Adding bus lanes to the 96 would basically be no different speed-wise than LRT, just not on rails. It seems to be something that politicians love to push for development money and legacy, not actually improved mobility.

As far as density on the Surrey corridor, I've taken both the 96 and the 503 and neither corridor seems especially dense to me right now. However I wouldn't object to rapid transit being on both, as long as Broadway was done first.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by Spork

I hope that Surrey gets the money approved and Translink gets to choose how to apply it, choosing to fast-track their selected expansion of choice (RRT+BRT?). No city should be going around Translink and developing a non-integrated system. It is bad enough when there are multiple transit authorities in the wider metro area.

I would have to agree with the Skytrain for Surrey group. Skytrain on Fraser Highway and BRT on King George/104 Ave makes the most sense. No extra transfers from South Surrey or on to the Fraser Highway corridor, faster transit along the busier east - west Fraser Highway corridor, higher ridership and more flexibility if there are accidents along King George/104 Ave, frequency along Fraser Highway

[SOSS]

I know that Surrey is pushing for LRT mostly because of cost of construction but the long term ramifications need to be assessed. Calgary is scene as a city that utilizes LRT very well. As for someone who lived in both Calgary and Vancouver I can attest that LRT is not the solution for Surrey. Downtown Calgary has many train vs car and train vs pedestrian incidents annually. - I bet everyone can guess who typically wins. This causes traffic and transit nightmares.

Now look at the LRT section along 36th street NE in Calgary. I think this section best reflects what will occur in Surry. The street is very wide to accommodate pedestrians, vehicles, LRT track and LRT stations. Look at the massive barrier the LRT creates for pedestrians. Look at the challenges it causes for vehicles and buses- try turning left- yikes! It cuts the neighborhood in half; similar to what a freeway does.

As an interim solution until ALRT can be funded and built, I'd much rather see a massive increase in buses along those corridors with either HOV or Bus-Only lanes to give them priority.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by SOSS

I know that Surrey is pushing for LRT mostly because of cost of construction but the long term ramifications need to be assessed.

Fraser Highway is very rapidly increasing in density, and many of the homes are relatively close to the street.

Skytrain there would basically be putting a viaduct in hundreds of people's front yards.

Wouldn't be surprised if that also factored in to the decision to endorse light rail over Skytrain.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SOSS

I know that Surrey is pushing for LRT mostly because of cost of construction but the long term ramifications need to be assessed. Calgary is scene as a city that utilizes LRT very well. As for someone who lived in both Calgary and Vancouver I can attest that LRT is not the solution for Surrey. Downtown Calgary has many train vs car and train vs pedestrian incidents annually. - I bet everyone can guess who typically wins. This causes traffic and transit nightmares.

Now look at the LRT section along 36th street NE in Calgary. I think this section best reflects what will occur in Surry. The street is very wide to accommodate pedestrians, vehicles, LRT track and LRT stations. Look at the massive barrier the LRT creates for pedestrians. Look at the challenges it causes for vehicles and buses- try turning left- yikes! It cuts the neighborhood in half; similar to what a freeway does.

As an interim solution until ALRT can be funded and built, I'd much rather see a massive increase in buses along those corridors with either HOV or Bus-Only lanes to give them priority.

This is exactly how I feel. Calgary and Surrey shouldn't be compared because the bulk of Calgary's LRT runs down highway medians, enabling it to achieve those high speeds Calgarians love to brag about. However in the few places it has to cross a street, it is very inconvenient. Like you said, it becomes a huge barrier to both roads and pedestrians.

And that's what Surrey wants to build: not a suburban largely grade separated system but one that is street-running, more comparable to Portland. This will take away space from cars, and most importantly make the system much slower than if it had full grade separation like the rest of the city does. If we're gonna build rapid transit, don't look at the mistakes most other cities in North America are making right now, and build it right the first time, with full grade separation.

I mean Surrey isn't very dense yet. I've bused down both King George Boulevard/104 Avenue and Fraser Highway and neither corridors seem all that dense. While I know both of them are in the process of massive changes, rapid transit is really not needed there yet. Neither the 96 nor the 503 are bursting at the seams or anything. Both buses will be adequate for a considerable amount of time. And as far as shaping land use goes, that can be accomplished with zoning.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This is exactly how I feel. Calgary and Surrey shouldn't be compared because the bulk of Calgary's LRT runs down highway medians, enabling it to achieve those high speeds Calgarians love to brag about. However in the few places it has to cross a street, it is very inconvenient. Like you said, it becomes a huge barrier to both roads and pedestrians.

And that's what Surrey wants to build: not a suburban largely grade separated system but one that is street-running, more comparable to Portland. This will take away space from cars, and most importantly make the system much slower than if it had full grade separation like the rest of the city does. If we're gonna build rapid transit, don't look at the mistakes most other cities in North America are making right now, and build it right the first time, with full grade separation.

The best example to use for pro-grade separation is NYC. All that infrastructure was built when the city was less dense, and it's all still in use.

Every time someone wants go non-separated, they point to europe (which has to run transit down places that were never built to have CARS in the first place. So those corridors already exist and they didn't develop heritage areas to increase traffic.

Nobody talks about the unpredictable costs of replacing/repairing LRV's, staffing costs, liability costs when people and vehicles intrude into the guideways, costs for upgrading all the crossings, etc. The only correct statement being made about LRT is "It's cheaper"... yes it's "cheaper to build (not maintain) and slower"

It won't convert car drivers, hence it's not a good idea. Highway Speed limits were increased to 100 from 90km/h, why would you want to take a 50km/h LRT.

[urbancanadian]

While Calgary does have large sections running down highway medians, it's certainly not most of their system. The difference is Calgary has planned for LRT long before the tracks are ever laid.

Since virtually all of the city's growth has been through outward sprawl, it's fairly easy to just leave space/ROW for the trains and extend the line out along with the development. When they set aside the ROW, they design for as few level crossings as possible, especially with major roads.

Here are some examples:
- In Martindale where the ROW is not even along the road: https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.1200907,-113.9628096,1082m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
- In Southeast Calgary where they left space on the west side of 52 Street SE (if you follow the ROW north, you can see the future alignment just by looking at the property lines) for the SE LRT: https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9250403,-113.9646037,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

It's when they build a line where there was little pre planning that the costs start to skyrocket to above-Skytrain prices, because of all the elevated/underground sections that are needed to maintain efficiency. I would say the corridor most like anything in Surrey is the North Central line, which will be built along Centre St. It's a lot like 104 Ave - the trains are either going to be very slow, or they are going to have to spend some $$ to keep trains moving.

As has been said before, the real difference is not in the technology, but whether or not the trains are grade-seperated.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by urbancanadian

While Calgary does have large sections running down highway medians, it's certainly not most of their system. The difference is Calgary has planned for LRT long before the tracks are ever laid.

Since virtually all of the city's growth has been through outward sprawl, it's fairly easy to just leave space/ROW for the trains and extend the line out along with the development. When they set aside the ROW, they design for as few level crossings as possible, especially with major roads.

Here are some examples:
- In Martindale where the ROW is not even along the road: https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.1200907,-113.9628096,1082m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
- In Southeast Calgary where they left space on the west side of 52 Street SE (if you follow the ROW north, you can see the future alignment just by looking at the property lines) for the SE LRT: https://www.google.ca/maps/@50.9250403,-113.9646037,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

It's when they build a line where there was little pre planning that the costs start to skyrocket to above-Skytrain prices, because of all the elevated/underground sections that are needed to maintain efficiency. I would say the corridor most like anything in Surrey is the North Central line, which will be built along Centre St. It's a lot like 104 Ave - the trains are either going to be very slow, or they are going to have to spend some $$ to keep trains moving.

As has been said before, the real difference is not in the technology, but whether or not the trains are grade-seperated.

I've taken the entire length of both lines on YouTube in the driver's cab, and it seemed to me that most of it appeared to be within its own right of way, whether it be in a median, some old rail corridor or whatever.

I definitely agree with your last point too, I just (wrongly) use LRT as shorthand for non-grade separated and Metro/SkyTrain for grade separated.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The best example to use for pro-grade separation is NYC. All that infrastructure was built when the city was less dense, and it's all still in use.

Every time someone wants go non-separated, they point to europe (which has to run transit down places that were never built to have CARS in the first place. So those corridors already exist and they didn't develop heritage areas to increase traffic.

Nobody talks about the unpredictable costs of replacing/repairing LRV's, staffing costs, liability costs when people and vehicles intrude into the guideways, costs for upgrading all the crossings, etc. The only correct statement being made about LRT is "It's cheaper"... yes it's "cheaper to build (not maintain) and slower"

It won't convert car drivers, hence it's not a good idea. Highway Speed limits were increased to 100 from 90km/h, why would you want to take a 50km/h LRT.

Yeah, absolutely. LRT may be cheaper than a true metro, but not really by much, and when you take into account how much worse a service it is and the maintenance costs that you brought up, it just doesn't make sense.

The argument people love to use is that it expands transit to more areas. But when it's not much better than a bus, what's the point? If you're gonna spend a lot of money anyway, you might as well go the extra little bit and build something that's truly fast and convenient. LRT doesn't attract nearly the amount of ridership that metros do, so you're really not doing much by extending it to more areas; most of the ridership would just be existing bus takers.Until then, rapid bus will do just fine. I get that trains are sexier, but all that money isn't worth it when the project is largely style over substance.

***********

Boy, I haven't gone on anti-LRT rants in a while cause I didn't want to be annoying. But when someone else brings it up, I can't help myself. This felt so good

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I just (wrongly) use LRT as shorthand for non-grade separated and Metro/SkyTrain for grade separated.

I think most of us do because it's less complicated than explaining 4 different things:

1. Fully Automated Metro in it's own grade separation (Skytrain, Canada Line) with third rail power
2. Partially Automated Metro (eg most Subway systems) in it's own grade separation (Which also includes some sections of LRT's like the O-train) with third rail power
3. At-grade, dedicated ROW Manually driven light rail (C-Train) with overhead catenary
4. At-grade, shared ROW Manually driven (Portland Max, StreetCars) with overhead catenary

Of course nothing will ever cleanly fit into any definition, so we shorthand call any at-grade light rail "LRT", and any grade separated rail "Skytrain" or "Subway" depending if it's above the ground or below.

Like if it was really an argument about technology, we would be pressing Translink to run trolley-bus wires everywhere and use more trolleybuses before even considering rail, but that tends to run counter to the trend of burying all the overhead wires and is less flexible. Nobody wants to see trolley wires everywhere, even if the electric trolleybus lasts twice as long, and makes less pollution and noise. I'm actually expecting advancements in "plug-in electric" charging that would negate the need for the trolleywires, and the drivers just switch buses to charge instead of refueling. Or just switching the batteries. LRT's still have overhead wires. So if people are really being NIMBY about the guideway's, the LRT's still have "ugly overhead wires"

[KPELLY]

As someone who has extensively used both Skytrain and the CTrain I will quickly summarize my thoughts on the CTrain.

CTrain
Speed: Fast when there are no at grade crossings or tight turns. Slow when there is any road crossings or when it runs on 7th Ave, and painfully slow when it turns while making turns in the downtown core.

System design: Calgary has much more open space (even compared to Surrey), so like urbancanadian said all the new neighboorhoods were developed with space for the track and station already predetermined, often there are overpasses major streets that go over the tracks to avoid having many at grade crossings. The west LRT is gorgeous, stations are huge and is mostly grade separated (elevated/tunnel) which made it more expensive per km than the Evergreen Line in even with a long tunnel. The rest of the system is not like that. One thing that I hate about the CTrain is it makes it very hard to cross the tracks keeping areas unwalkable.

System Appearance: Personally I hate the look of overhead wires, I would rather have a elevated guideway. The suburban stations are massive and generally are surrounded by park and ride lots. The new vehicles are nice, clean, the system as a whole is very clean and well kept. Where Ctrain looks worst is when it runs down the middle of major roads/highways, look up 36 St NE (around Sunridge Mall) and check out how obtrusive the stations are and how the tracks make the area unwalkable.

System Reliability: Frequency is okay, not as high as skytrain but most of the time acceptable. The frequency is lower on weekends or late night, but people don't typically take the CTrain on weekends (except for events), they just drive. People have been complaining over the last few months about Skytrain breaking down etc. (3-4 times??), but during my time here quite often maybe 2-3 times per month average, I notice the "CTrain Replacement" buses running down Macleod Trail. The way system is designed, it allows buses to easily replace the Ctrains because it typicially follows major roads.

To sum up, CTrain works for Calgary for the most part, if there was a tunnel for the downtown portion (like is planned) it would work really well FOR Calgary. I do not think it would work nearly as well if implemented in Surrey, mostly because Surrey wasn't designed in advance for LRT and there are many at grade crossings along the planned routes that would either cause the system to be slow (with little benefit over BRT), or expensive if they grade-separate it (no cheaper than Skytrain).