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

[CurtisVerbatim]

I just discovered this thread, and this LRT bull has infuriated me ever since it was announced. I'm glad others feel the same.

[CurtisVerbatim]

I'm working at the King George construction site and the development plans call for allocations to be made for an LRT station right between King George station and the new Coast Capital Building. I'm very worried that this is a done deal.

[AForce]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

Addition of bus queue lanes at 76 Ave and 88 Ave:

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/surr...-schedule-could-lead-to-fines-1.1586820#

Finally, asked about the completion time for the long-standing project, Neuman said he’s been told both 76th and 88th intersections should be completed within the next two weeks.

“Optimistically it’ll be done in two weeks but my gut feeling is that it’ll done mid-December,” he said.

I happened to get stuck at king george and 88 last week. Lets just say the flag people are worse than useless. Single lane traffic both ways on king george with left turn signals flashing but nobody can go. If they had directed people to just go ahead straight through i wouldn't have had to sit there for 20 minutes.

[BCPhil]

^^^^ I was wondering what was taking so long. And they always seem to be doing the most work during rush hour, then nothing at night.

And the signs mentioned in the story still read “Roadwork August – October” as of Sunday.

It will be great when it is done, but I've been unimpressed with the construction effort. It has been a nightmare for months.

[Rational Plan3]

I've used a variety of systems in Europe and they all have their advantages.

First of all we can just forget underground as it is expensive to build and too maintain.

Sky train can handle high volumes, but it is still expensive to build and maintain. Cheaper then an underground network though.

LRT is cheaper and can be fast, but I feel too many have their experiences coloured by the first generation systems in North America with their high floor trains and somewhat chunky trains. The new Seattle system is practically a metro system with one small section of street running.

A proper low floor tram system, that is segregated from traffic can move a serious amount of people. And not those tiny street car systems in vogue in the US, but proper combine 45m units of Central Europe.

Remember segregated transit has it's own time penalties. Underground and elevated stations are expensive to build and operate and therefore have to be more widely spaced. So while journey times may be quicker between stations people need to to add a couple of minutes for time to get from the street to the platform.

Also a low level platform station is much cheaper to build than a conventional station. No need for elevators or bridges, never mind tunnels or large structures. That means that you can have more stations more closely spaced. This means that people are more likely to walk to their local station rather than rely on a connecting bus. Total journey time is door to door not station to station.

If you have experienced a good tram system, then you can see the advantages over other types of system.

As to Surrey. Well it looks like the chosen routes for LRT are about moving people around Surrey and connecting to regional transit. With the best will in the World their are never going to multiple Sky Train routes radiating across Surrey. At best one line might make to Langley, or half way there.

Skytrain has other priorities than Surrey. First it has to address Broadway and expand capacity on existing lines. With all the development that is occurring around the Skytrain stations it is very possible that it won't possible to extend Skytrain further out as the system will be full. What then?

[st7860]

LRT's need drivers to run them increasing the operating costs.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

Remember segregated transit has it's own time penalties. Underground and elevated stations are expensive to build and operate and therefore have to be more widely spaced.

This is an extremely common argument put forth by local LRT supporters that I suppose is valid when you look at it on a corridor-centric perspective - but invalid when the rest of the city and region is taken into account.

At the end of the day, SkyTrain is doing a lot more to speed up door-to-door commutes - because you make a lot more door-to-door commutes, within X amount of time, possible in the first place. That's what gets people here to make transit an every day choice, and is driving SkyTrain's leading ridership in North America.

Let's take, for example, a transit rider in Cloverdale. A SkyTrain extension down Fraser Highway would give a connecting bus rider a better range of every-day commutes within a reasonable time. There's reasonable justification to work in Surrey, but you could also get as far as Metrotown within good time. A slower Light Rail system, designed with more stops, takes 15-20 minutes longer plus requiring a transfer to SkyTrain, and would make a Metrotown commute for this rider well over an hour - something that isn't attractive on a day-to-day basis. If the rider happens to need this option to stay productive, they might instead choose to drive to Scott Rd Park & Ride to take the SkyTrain, or just drive the whole way. Many of Surrey's residents already own cars; they intend to use them when possible. People who live in areas where their access needs cannot be met with transit, simply don't stand for using transit. That's why the city has an >80% driving mode share and the region's fastest vehicle registration growth rate.

I was one of those people in Surrey and chose the other way around by moving out to Burnaby, choosing a place on the SkyTrain. The productivity it gave me allowed me to work part-time while studying full-time and subsequently clinch $10,000 in scholarship funds, sending me to where I am now in Kyushu, Japan.

Also a low level platform station is much cheaper to build than a conventional station. No need for elevators or bridges, never mind tunnels or large structures. That means that you can have more stations more closely spaced. This means that people are more likely to walk to their local station rather than rely on a connecting bus. Total journey time is door to door not station to station.

Again, a legitimate point in the context of the corridor - but not in the context of the entire city. Surrey is a really damn big city. I can't understate it enough - the proposed LRT corridors are actually a really small portion of this damn big city. Most people are going to be using buses to connect to it, regardless of where the stations are placed and how many people are within walking distance.

while journey times may be quicker between stations people need to to add a couple of minutes for time to get from the street to the platform.

It's a little misleading to suggest that on-street LRT stations have quicker access times, because you can't access the LRT station until the light turns green so you can cross - that could be a couple minutes, and you might watch a train arrive and then pull away on the green light phase without ever getting an opportunity to access the station platform. Plus at the end of the day, even the slowest handicapped person is likely to take less than 6 minutes to take a few elevators to access an elevated station platform - on an LRT, that's how long you'd be waiting for the train. Station access time is a non-issue until people are taking so much time to access the station that they have to wait for the next train every time. It is tempting, but misleading, to suggest that station access time for on-street LRT stations is actually an advantage of any sort.

A proper low floor tram system, that is segregated from traffic can move a serious amount of people. And not those tiny street car systems in vogue in the US, but proper combine 45m units of Central Europe.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Light Rail, well designed, can move a lot of people. The issue we are raising with the LRT proposal is that its benefits to transit users and others are so negligible at this time - and especially difficult to justify when weighed against inconveniences during construction.

You also shouldn't underestimate the potential of much cheaper Bus Rapid Transit. The transit service quality is as high as it would be with LRT, and the demand isn't expected to be a problem for BRT's capacity for the next several years. BRT would keep the costs of rapid transit in the city lower than the proposed LRT network when combined with a SkyTrain to Langley - and the pair would work together to generate twice (2x) the transportation benefits.

[GlassCity]

I'd also like to point out that stations aren't built far apart because it's cheaper, it's because rapid transit is meant to be an express service taking people to popular destinations as fast as possible. If you want more stops, take a local bus. Lots of stops just slows the service down and makes it less attractive.

[memememe76]

If one has ever taken the light rail in San Jose one would know that a lot of stops 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[rsxstock]

i might have missed it but what are valid reasons to go LRT in surrey?

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

i might have missed it but what are valid reasons to go LRT in surrey?

That newfangled SkyTrain thingymajiggy is expensive and it will hurt my property values and we'll never need it radda radda radda radda......

That I can immediately tell, no. Once you leave the city center things spread out pretty quickly.

[memememe76]

That newfangled SkyTrain thingymajiggy is expensive and it will hurt my property values and we'll never need it radda radda radda radda......

What basis do you think this? Surrey residents would LOVE an extended Skytrain. You won't get the same opposition here like you will in Point Grey. The LRT is more a result of impatience.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by rsxstock

i might have missed it but what are valid reasons to go LRT in surrey?

Let me dig up one of "light rail expert" Malcom's things (Keep in mind his modus operendi is to get a tram rail between Vancouver and Chilliwack using the existing SRY/Former BC-Electric line. He hates the proposed LRT as about as much as he hates Skytrain based on several challenges made by readers of the Vancouver Sun/Province .)

Let's see:
- Cheaper to build
http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-n...te-rock-light-rail-line-revisited-again/
" we could build 121 km of modern LRT lines in the Fraser Valley for about the same price as the 11 km Evergreen Line!"

Which is fudging the data horribly, since the staffing costs and headway will not permit it. Sure you can build MORE, but you will never be able to staff and maintain enough trains to make building that much worthwhile.

Annnndd.... that's it. (Seriously, this guy spends so much time harping about how evil Translink and Skytrain is, he sounds like a cartoon villain.)

Where as the fact card for our Skytrain reads like this:
+ Faster
+ Higher Capacity
+ Cheaper to maintain vehicles
+ Cheaper to operate (UTO)
+ Safer (no grade crossings)
+ Demand based scheduling
- Expensive to maintain guideway
- Expensive to construct guideway (one time cost)

LRT and Skytrain cars cost roughly 3.3 million each.

The LRT fact card reads like this:
- 30 accidents per year, per crossing ( src: http://www.sacrt.com/dna/pdfs/deir_1207/004_10.pdf )
- Without grade separation, delays and low speed are required
http://www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/jaa93a38.pdf
- Expensive repairs
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/09/14/mta-to-begin-repairing-fleet-of-damaged-lrvs/
- Driver based scheduling
- More dangerous than driving your car ( http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/linksafety.htm , see USDOT graphs)

I can spend 10 minutes looking up stuff on Google just as easily as anyone else can, and can easily find data to make at-grade Light rail as evil as possible.

Comprehensive Costs of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Crashes
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_755.pdf

To monetize crash costs at the crossing, Cal-B/C uses the average incidence of fatalities and injuries
per crash from FRA historical data for California. Cal-B/C treats modes equally, so the model uses the
same values per event to monetize crash costs at the crossing as it does for other highway, rail, or transit
projects. Currently, the resulting values are $4.1 million for each fatality and $74,500 for each injury in
2007 dollars.

This is my favorite document though that torpedoes a lot of "favorable" light rail data:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp100/part%205.pdf

Malcom thinks the TRB is fictitious. He would rather nobody know about how the Skytrain compares with Light rail.

Like the entire "winning" Light Rail argument either hindges on cost-to-build, or the lack of grade separation being somehow desirable to urban designers, when every government and rail organization is saying to quit building at-grade passenger rail crossings. As soon as you start grade-separating the light rail (see the confederation line in Ottawa) it starts approaching the cost of having just gone with a fully automated system on it's own guideway from the beginning.

As far as I'm concerned, every time someone suggests light rail is cheap, they are leaving out the actual operation costs and safety equipment, let alone land acquisition costs. One can't point at another light rail project and go "see their's is cheap!"

https://lightrailnow.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/2_lrn_us-lrt-starter-lines-cost-per-mi_rev2.jpg

Seattle's actually the most expensive light rail project.

I can cherry-pick any set of data I want to make Light rail look worse than it is, but the one that everyone uses is the crash photos with LRV's.
https://www.google.ca/search?&tbm=isch&q=light+rail+crash

Speaking of how dead trams are in Vancouver:
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Vanco...arred+problems+report/9652682/story.html

His report also points to the potential for collisions — there have been ten to date, costing the city $90,000 — as well as liability for rail operations and the risk of third party claims as reasons why now should be the end of the line for the streetcar.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Vanco...+report/9652682/story.html#ixzz3JaoUyO4a

[ssiguy]

I think B Line buses with more frequency, ROW priority, and POP will be fine for the present and would cover a far larger area, thousands more people, and scores of more destination than an LRt would at a fraction of the money and time required to build it.

What the Valley really needs is Commuter Rail. There is a point where even rapid transit is no longer that rapid if the distances become so great. Anyone going from Langley to Vancouver will not see any real decrease in their commuting times and neither will someone from Newton. Also there is a point to where SkyTrain will simply be beyond it's capacity. Even if they bring in 100 meter/3 MK111 trains, there is a limit to what the system can absorb especially in rush hour. This is to say nothing of the passengers further up the line in NuWest/Burn/Van.

Even a few commuter rail trains from waterfront with a station at Broadway/Commercial and then onto NW/Sur/Lan would greatly relieve the capacity issues and actually offer those people in further out suburbs true rapid transit.

GO Transit in Toronto carries over 200,000 passengers a day in basically just rush hour times except for the Lakeshore route. The trains are up to 12 bi-level cars each offering seating for 1900 passengers per train. Even if there were only 4 trains leaving downtown in rush hour, at that capacity that would take 5500 one-way commuters off the SkyTrain during a one hour period.............a huge amount of relief for SkyTrain travellers who live closer to the city and a huge time saver for further out suburbanites.

People can tolerate 15 minute stand room only trains but not 45 minutes, they will simply balk and take their cars.

[ssiguy]

I said 5500 one way passenger trips per hour and I meant to say 7500

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by memememe76

What basis do you think this? Surrey residents would LOVE an extended Skytrain. You won't get the same opposition here like you will in Point Grey. The LRT is more a result of impatience.

I'm about 99.99% positive MIPS was being sarcastic.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think B Line buses with more frequency, ROW priority, and POP will be fine for the present and would cover a far larger area, thousands more people, and scores of more destination than an LRt would at a fraction of the money and time required to build it.

What the Valley really needs is Commuter Rail. There is a point where even rapid transit is no longer that rapid if the distances become so great. Anyone going from Langley to Vancouver will not see any real decrease in their commuting times and neither will someone from Newton. Also there is a point to where SkyTrain will simply be beyond it's capacity. Even if they bring in 100 meter/3 MK111 trains, there is a limit to what the system can absorb especially in rush hour. This is to say nothing of the passengers further up the line in NuWest/Burn/Van.

Even a few commuter rail trains from waterfront with a station at Broadway/Commercial and then onto NW/Sur/Lan would greatly relieve the capacity issues and actually offer those people in further out suburbs true rapid transit.

GO Transit in Toronto carries over 200,000 passengers a day in basically just rush hour times except for the Lakeshore route. The trains are up to 12 bi-level cars each offering seating for 1900 passengers per train. Even if there were only 4 trains leaving downtown in rush hour, at that capacity that would take 5500 one-way commuters off the SkyTrain during a one hour period.............a huge amount of relief for SkyTrain travellers who live closer to the city and a huge time saver for further out suburbanites.

People can tolerate 15 minute stand room only trains but not 45 minutes, they will simply balk and take their cars.

I agree that there needs to be commuter rail along the Expo Line route, but maybe we should "finish" the Expo Line first. I mean, once you extend it to Langley, it's really not ever gonna go anywhere after that. So once that's done, and capacity becomes an issue we can slowly start building commuter rail along the corridor, maybe doing it in phases starting at Waterfront and moving it further and further out gradually. This way you connect Langley to more destinations, instead of potentially making them transfer more than they have to, say for example if they worked at Sapperton.

Reading Translink's study on the Expo Line, in it they assume that if an extension were to be built to Langley, only every second train would go past King George. This would retain the current levels of standing room on every second train, so if people boarding in Whalley were really worried about having to stand for a while, they could just take the short-turned train. So if you're not already standing, if the extension is built you won't have to. Besides, not everybody is going downtown, a standing trip from Surrey to Metrotown is less than 20 minutes for example.

Also, is there even much of a right-of-way available? I worry this might have a lot of tunneling, which would be very expensive. So I agree that we need commuter rail going southeast, but I think that it should come after the main Expo Line trunk line is fully built out.

[Rico]

I want to start off by saying I like Skytrain....but that does not mean LRT is bad. Anyone can be like Malcom and cherry pick data. The differences between RRT (mini metro, Skytrain) and LRT depend largely about context and implementation...and if you like LRT it is better to look at non American examples. For almost all purposes the Seattle or Ottawa 'LRTs' are metros using LRT vehicles. As everyone should know the more grade separation required for reliable service the more expensive the LRT will be. If you need a lot of grade separation for your corridor to have reliable service (think downtown or Broadway) the cost difference will be small. If you can throw LRT in the middle of the road and not conflict with utilities you could start to get towards the numbers Malcolm takes about....without vehicles of course. The costs Translink came up with seem reasonable. The numbers Translink came up with show LRT will work in Surrey. But although it does not say it Skytrain on Fraser Hwy with BRT was the best over the 30yr period. It comes down to timelines. As a politician do you care about what is best more than 30years in the future or do you care about the next 10yrs?
A note about operating costs automated systems have a high base operating cost but it does not scale up much. LRT operating costs are much more directly linked with the number of vehicles. A study that Malcolm likes to quote showed automated systems have higher costs.....of course it used Skytrain data from 1988 and as ridership increased the cost per passanger decreased till it was one of the lowest operating costs. Because it will be part of the Expo line operating cost the Surrey line will have reasonable operating costs. If it was a stand alone system LRT would have lower costs based on the ridership.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I'm about 99.99% positive MIPS was being sarcastic.

Make that 100%

[Rational Plan3]

I get it you love Sky train, and it is a great system for longer distance travel. But it's capital costs are very high, and it's operating costs don't just depend on the number of drivers it employs. The OPEX on the two system aren't as massively different .

I know an automated system has the potential to massively change it's operating pattern, without the trouble of worrying about shift rotas, but how often does it actually happen. Does the system have lots of spare capacity hanging around, or does maintenance schedules and the lack of spare vehicles mean the system is running flat out anyway.

I do think the LRT has potential to Guildford and Newton, as the Langley, it maybe better by Skytrain. But I just don't think it's going to happen unless their is a radical change in attitudes to infrastructure spending.

No way is a Surrey extension going to happen within 20 years. It will take 10 years for Broadway to be up and running, at the very least. Then you have to rebuild the existing lines to take longer trains, and replace the trains and think about renewing all the track and signalling, etc.

Plus considering growth rates on Skytrain there will be might be no spare capacity to extend the system any further out, unless brand new lines are built into the City Centre.

If Greater Vancouver continues to densify then there will also be calls to build street LRT's on the busiest streets.



To serve the outlying suburbs with fast transit to the core areas, will require additional systems that will not come cheap. Maybe political consensus will change once traffic grinds to a halt, but it will probably take a crises to change conventions.

No metro line can be infinitely extended eventually the trains become crush loaded in the outer suburbs and no one at the inner stations can get on.