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

[SFUVancouver]

For what it's worth, Richmond's buses have pretty poor levels of service, except for the bizarrely frequent 410. The 403, along Number 3 Road, comparable to King George Blvd/Hwy, has peak level service of 20 minutes and off peak of 30 minutes and does not qualify as part of the Frequent Transit Network (FTN). While it parallels the SkyTrain from Richmond-Brighouse Station north, south of the station and along Steveston Highway it's frequency is pretty terrible and yet it serves the city's main street. I'm not sure if the Canada Line in Richmond even technically qualifies as being part of the FTN, which requires 15 minute or better service for 15 or more hours a day. During peak periods the line is at 6-ish minute frequencies but get into the later evening and its down to 18 or 19 minute frequencies. That's not awful, but its also not the sort of frequency enjoyed elsewhere in the SkyTrain system.

To be clear, I'm not saying Richmond is as transit deficient as the South of Fraser municipalities, but it's also not awesome either and I've definitely noticed the difference after having lived in Vancouver most of my life.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

For what it's worth, Richmond's buses have pretty poor levels of service, except for the bizarrely frequent 410. The 403, along Number 3 Road, comparable to King George Blvd/Hwy, has peak level service of 20 minutes and off peak of 30 minutes and does not qualify as part of the Frequent Transit Network (FTN). While it parallels the SkyTrain from Richmond-Brighouse Station north, south of the station and along Steveston Highway it's frequency is pretty terrible and yet it serves the city's main street. I'm not sure if the Canada Line in Richmond even technically qualifies as being part of the FTN, which requires 15 minute or better service for 15 or more hours a day. During peak periods the line is at 6-ish minute frequencies but get into the later evening and its down to 18 or 19 minute frequencies. That's not awful, but its also not the sort of frequency enjoyed elsewhere in the SkyTrain system.

To be clear, I'm not saying Richmond is as transit deficient as the South of Fraser municipalities, but it's also not awesome either and I've definitely noticed the difference after having lived in Vancouver most of my life.

This is why I get kind of annoyed when Surrey complains about its lack of transit. Having taken transit there and also growing up in Richmond, Surrey's transit service seems pretty typical among the suburbs, so I'm not sure why it feels that it's being ignored and that it needs massive improvements compared to others. I'm sure you know that Richmond traffic isn't a cakewalk either, and major routes like the 410, the 401 and the 403 are packed at peak hours and sometimes have to pass up. Yet overall, I'm generally pleased with its transit because it more or less matches demand. I wish it was better, but I think it's fair.

As far as the Frequent Transit Network goes, it's 15 minute headways between 6-9 weekdays, 7-9 Saturdays and 8-9 Sundays, so the Canada Line does qualify

[cabotp]

I wonder if the underlying problem is really that Surrey has felt in the past that it was the underpriviliged younger sibbling of Vancouver. So the older sibling has always gotten things before the younger sibling.

But now surrey has grown. And so it thinks it deserves something as well. It knows skytrain is better. But it doesn't want to wait. Cause it thinks it will never get what it wants.

Surrey should keep in mind that the first plans for the Canada (RAV) line came out in the 80's. A line to Coquitlam came out soon after if I remember correctly. The broadway line has been talked about for I honestly can't remember how long. Sure it would of been nice to of had them all built out by now and working on Surrey. But stuff happens.

So I think Surrey needs to be patient. Sure get some B-Line routes going that have limited stop service. The worst thing Surrey could do is build some LRT (ground level) lines for cheap. Only to find out 20-30 years from now that they need to be replaced cause they can't handle the passenger load.

[red-paladin]

I certainly think that having 'real' frequent B lines in all three corridors for several years should be a pre-requisite for any rail transit.
I consider a real B-line like the 99, where no matter what hour it is, you never have to look at a schedule because it's always less than 15 min.

[logicbomb]

Haven't been able to reply to the postings due to time constraints, but sort of disappointment to see SurreyFirst has retained their spots in Council and Hepner will be leading the push for LRT and shovels to hit the ground asap.

[whiteshadow]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Haven't been able to reply to the postings due to time constraints, but sort of disappointment to see SurreyFirst has retained their spots in Council and Hepner will be leading the push for LRT and shovels to hit the ground asap.

Every candidate from all slates even independents had jumped on the lrt bandwagon so I don't think it would be much different if someone else had won.

[Millennium2002]

I hope they only do phase one first... just to see what they're dealing with in practice.

Heck, one could argue that doing such is politically expedient... then you can say in four years... "Hey, we got one done, and it works wonderfully... so why not the next? Let's keep the ball rolling!"

Then again, this is Surrey after all, and I can't tell if people will want to wait that long or if they're going to put all their eggs in one basket and jump with it too...

[GeeCee]

If nothing else, if Surrey is going to build LRT, then that means more money to build Skytrain elsewhere, such as to Broadway.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This is why I get kind of annoyed when Surrey complains about its lack of transit. Having taken transit there and also growing up in Richmond, Surrey's transit service seems pretty typical among the suburbs, so I'm not sure why it feels that it's being ignored and that it needs massive improvements compared to others. I'm sure you know that Richmond traffic isn't a cakewalk either, and major routes like the 410, the 401 and the 403 are packed at peak hours and sometimes have to pass up. Yet overall, I'm generally pleased with its transit because it more or less matches demand. I wish it was better, but I think it's fair.

As far as the Frequent Transit Network goes, it's 15 minute headways between 6-9 weekdays, 7-9 Saturdays and 8-9 Sundays, so the Canada Line does qualify

Yep, every time I go to Surrey I expect to see it booming with new towers the way the politicians talk about need for new transit. Then I go and see empty lot after empty lot and strip malls. They have skytrain, they have a decent grid for buses, looks good to me.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

If nothing else, if Surrey is going to build LRT, then that means more money to build Skytrain elsewhere, such as to Broadway.

If Surrey wants LRT they should build it first along King George and 104th, and leave Fraser Highway open to SkyTrain.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

If nothing else, if Surrey is going to build LRT, then that means more money to build Skytrain elsewhere, such as to Broadway.

Doubtful. They (Surrey) don't have the money for it. As a P3P Project pitched to the Federal Government they would need to make a business case for it, which as everyone on this forum knows already, there isn't one.

My optimistic outlook is that it just get's shelved by the feds/province and the Surrey tax-payers would rather no-transit than pay for LRT by themselves.

You have to look at what Surrey voted federally and provincially to see what will happen.
Federally:
Surrey North went NDP, Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale went Conservative. Langley went Conservative.
Provincially:
Surrey-Cloverdale-Liberal
Surrey-Fleetwood-Liberal
Surrey-Green Timbers-NDP
Surrey-Newton-NDP
Surrey-Panorama-Liberal
Surrey-Tynehead-Liberal
Surrey-Whalley-NDP
Surrey-White Rock-Liberal

The Proposed LRT in Translink's documents is almost entirely inside NDP held areas except for the leg that goes to Langley which passes through Surrey-Cloverdale.

Like to me that's an uphill battle. Dianne Watts wishes to take the Surrey-White Rock Federal riding, which is already Conservative. Does the existing MP plan on retiring from it? Seems like taking Surrey North would be a sure bet if she's really so popular.

But anyhow, just based on what happened with the Evergreen line, it may end up being LRT up until it comes to bidding, and then the stakeholders will again notice that LRT is more expensive than using the existing technology we are already using. http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/Business_Case/080219_BusinessCase.pdf

Of note:

The Provincial Transit Plan, announced
in 2008, is intended to maximize the opportunity for people to get out of cars and onto transit,
driving a focus on system capacity and ridership. Other changes contributing to the
opportunity for re-evaluation include:
- An increase in estimated LRT capital costs beyond the previously-established funding
envelope, as a result of changes in scope and construction inflation over time;

- Funding uncertainty.

and

Capital costs for ALRT are only 12 per cent higher than the LRT option in the NW corridor
and 27 per cent higher in the SE corridor. ALRT also has significantly lower annual operation
and maintenance costs, despite offering a more frequent service and having more substantial
stations. This reflects the automated nature of the technology, and the operations and
maintenance efficiencies available as part of a larger integrated system.

While I have this document up, it should be noted that in section 8.3 the operating costs for ALRT is 0.45$ per passenger while LRT is 1.70$

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I personally think it should go under ground, but I know that's a non-starter

I'm not so sure that's a non starter. A late starter for sure.

Surface trams can sometimes later be made fully or even partially, in the central city, underground, as the cases of Melbourne, Brussels, and closer to home, (even if in part) Edmonton.
Here's a look at Edmonton's LRT, where it causes vehicle traffic to stop, but where it
goes underground downton, and as in Vancouver, for that point, (or points anyway) it's a grade-seperated metro.
Such may come about as Surrey densifies, but as I said, It's gonna take a while. But it is quite possible

Edmonton LRT, if you're interested.
Oh, and another thing crossed my mind here, Glass; ... before is the video starts and/or you skip reading, please note the scale of the trains.

If they were fast enough, and practicable enough, they might feed into that oft-talked about
ommuter rail (WCE) line into the Valley, past Langley, out to Abby.
AFAIK the manufacture has not been chosen yet. A company that made such trains (to keep costs down, this being lrt, and not rrt; sorry that's the way it is) ...
could still, judging from the Edmonton example, use this something like this to meet Surreys needs fully, but also to extend as commuter rail.

It requires synthesizing two concepts: the lrt to serve Surrey, and the commuter rail out the valley, maybe with a fork east, as well as a line south, using lrt (grade seperated to the max)
to South Surrey and White Rock, integrating into Surrey, putting the central Surrey staions underground and link it up up with the major Surrey emerging empoyment and poles of business and commerce beside Skytrain Stations like Surrey Central and King George,, as well as ongoing downtown traffic, hey you're smokin'. Well, humming, anyway. A MAJOR regional transit axis.

You can get underground if you push hard enough, I am sure


Er, Edmonton.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeavjrSsqrA




history&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=DqRoVPukHNHk-gbYkIA4

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Yep, every time I go to Surrey I expect to see it booming with new towers the way the politicians talk about need for new transit. Then I go and see empty lot after empty lot and strip malls. They have skytrain, they have a decent grid for buses, looks good to me.

The ride from Gateway to Surrey Central feels like I'm taking a ride through detroit. There's roads and utilities but otherwise there's been zero (re)development.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MIPS

The ride from Gateway to Surrey Central feels like I'm taking a ride through detroit. There's roads and utilities but otherwise there's been zero (re)development.

The Surrey Defense League must be sleeping in this morning. I get pounced on when I make the same observation.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Jebby

If Surrey wants LRT they should build it first along King George and 104th, and leave Fraser Highway open to SkyTrain.

This is what I hope happens, if shovels in the ground for LRT is really already inevitable.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

This is what I hope happens, if shovels in the ground for LRT is really already inevitable.

credit: Skytrainforsurrey.org

Here's the sign... complete in 2018!

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Doubtful. They (Surrey) don't have the money for it. As a P3P Project pitched to the Federal Government they would need to make a business case for it, which as everyone on this forum knows already, there isn't one.

Funny....I didn't know this forum is the sole source of determining the existence of other city's business cases. This forum did made predictions that Kirk LaPointe will win, right? So says the polls and our in-house political analysts...

This is going back many years (when I was a Surrey resident) but I was the impression Surrey did have a huge cash reserve. They can theoretically build the LRT themselves if they truly want too, but that would mean shifting funds for other things the city needs. But maybe it changed since then, after all, they just built a new library and city hall.

[WarrenC12]

Surrey has kept taxes super low for far too long. Now they are paying the price (crime, resulting in big boosts in RCMP spending) and LRT, if they get it, will come with tax increases to pay for it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I'm not so sure that's a non starter. A late starter for sure.

Surface trams can sometimes later be made fully or even partially, in the central city, underground, as the cases of Melbourne, Brussels, and closer to home, (even if in part) Edmonton.
Here's a look at Edmonton's LRT, where it causes vehicle traffic to stop, but where it
goes underground downton, and as in Vancouver, for that point, (or points anyway) it's a grade-seperated metro.
Such may come about as Surrey densifies, but as I said, It's gonna take a while. But it is quite possible

Edmonton LRT, if you're interested.
Oh, and another thing crossed my mind here, Glass; ... before is the video starts and/or you skip reading, please note the scale of the trains.

If they were fast enough, and practicable enough, they might feed into that oft-talked about
ommuter rail (WCE) line into the Valley, past Langley, out to Abby.
AFAIK the manufacture has not been chosen yet. A company that made such trains (to keep costs down, this being lrt, and not rrt; sorry that's the way it is) ...
could still, judging from the Edmonton example, use this something like this to meet Surreys needs fully, but also to extend as commuter rail.

It requires synthesizing two concepts: the lrt to serve Surrey, and the commuter rail out the valley, maybe with a fork east, as well as a line south, using lrt (grade seperated to the max)
to South Surrey and White Rock, integrating into Surrey, putting the central Surrey staions underground and link it up up with the major Surrey emerging empoyment and poles of business and commerce beside Skytrain Stations like Surrey Central and King George,, as well as ongoing downtown traffic, hey you're smokin'. Well, humming, anyway. A MAJOR regional transit axis.

You can get underground if you push hard enough, I am sure


Er, Edmonton.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeavjrSsqrA




history&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=DqRoVPukHNHk-gbYkIA4

I've watched Edmonton LRT videos many times, so I'm quite familiar with the system. It is of course possible to build it underground, but I mean if Surrey's already afraid of the costs of SkyTrain, then building it underground would be an even bigger challenge, though it is the best option given that it's faster than LRT but isn't ugly with the overhead viaducts. I'm saying it's a non-starter because it's unlikely anybody would foot the bill.

P.S. If you like watching transit videos, this guy on YouTube has HD driver's view videos of both the Edmonton LRT and the CTrain, I've watched them both constantly.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL03C7D6D144470C35

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Funny....I didn't know this forum is the sole source of determining the existence of other city's business cases. This forum did made predictions that Kirk LaPointe will win, right? So says the polls and our in-house political analysts...

This forum tends to bend "pro-development", which tends to be right-wing. Like any other forum, it becomes an echo chamber of the loudest.

Originally Posted by queetz@home

This is going back many years (when I was a Surrey resident) but I was the impression Surrey did have a huge cash reserve. They can theoretically build the LRT themselves if they truly want too, but that would mean shifting funds for other things the city needs. But maybe it changed since then, after all, they just built a new library and city hall.

http://www.surrey.ca/files/2014_3rd_Quarterly_Fin._Report_for_web_2014_10_21(1).pdf
$735,089,092.56

Keep in mind they are hiring 100 more RCMP members.