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

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

I 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.

Expo Line won't have to have stations expanded for a couple of decades, at least. There are still other options in the meantime such as replacing MarkI trains with more efficient and longer MarkIII trains and increasing frequencies. Also, expanding the M-Line to join up with the Canada Line will allow some pressure to be relieves from the busiest section of the Expo Line.

[xd_1771]

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.

Look, I get that you're not enthusiastic about money being spent on a somewhat more expensive SkyTrain, but your attempts to discredit such an extension are so typical of a Light Rail supporter - and so typically short-sighted.

How do you know the construction of SkyTrain means less people from the South of Fraser will be getting off at points in Surrey and Surrey City Centre? At the end of the day, Surrey City Centre is growing as a destination for commuters - regardless of what transit is going to be built. Even people from the North-of-Fraser will be coming here, via the existing SkyTrain, for jobs. I think you're a bit presumptuous to think that just because an extension of SkyTrain could take people as far as Vancouver, that everyone's going to be using it to commute to Vancouver. That's not going to stop people from ending their commutes at Surrey City Centre because of natural reasons to get off.

And, that's the beauty of SkyTrain. Apart from servicing to commutes to Surrey City Centre - and faster so - it's feasible to commute to the North-of-Fraser if you want or need. You can service people who, for example, could take on a higher-paying job matching their talents in a Metrotown office but live in South Langley. Vice-versa.

Consider the projected 2041 daily ridership:
LRT network - 166,000
SkyTrain, Bus Rapid Transit - 202,000

People will take advantage of the ability to use SkyTrain for a feasible commute to the North of Fraser - but these people won't necessarily be displacing the amount of Surrey-bound riders. In fact, these are people that likely wouldn't be riding transit in the first place if an LRT were built - it would take too much time. And those 166,000 riders, attracted otherwise to an LRT network to commute to points within Surrey, won't necessarily not ride just because there's a difference in the transit technology and alignment. I get the feeling they'd be more-so enthusiastic in riding, with services faster and more reliable.

Anyway, for concerns about capacity in the inner areas, there's a reason an Expo Line Upgrade Strategy is being acted on. In any case, SkyTrain has the capacity to handle additional North-of-Fraser bound commutes for years and years to come - and there's plenty of time for the region and cities to redirect growth and new job space so that more people might be tempted to find jobs at Metrotown and get off there, rather than commute to downtown Vancouver and clog the system at an inner-city choke-point.

By the way,

and it's operating costs don't just depend on the number of drivers it employs

There are no drivers.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by 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.

The issue is with how dishonest the need for LRT is.

I can point to one page that the Federal Government has to look at to dismiss the LRT project as viable:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...udy_Phase_2_Alternatives_Evaluation.ashx
Exhibit 3B.8 "Best Bus" the NPV is negative and remains linear.

That is "Business as Usual" at 2017 "doing nothing" becomes a money pit.


BRT1 Breaks even in 2038, so as a "P3" Project this is doable.


LRT1 Won't break even until around 2075 if you extend the graph out.


RRT1 (without BRT) breaks even at 2035 AND the continued cost of operations is tiny compared to the benefits.


RRT1a recovers at 2036



What Surrey wants to build as Phase I is LRT4, which NEVER recovers it's costs in a lifetime, around 180 years.



So just to reiterate the point. There is NO benefit to LRT. It's a money pit. If somehow the Feds approve this project, it will be worse than the Fast Ferry scandal.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Expo Line won't have to have stations expanded for a couple of decades, at least. There are still other options in the meantime such as replacing MarkI trains with more efficient and longer MarkIII trains and increasing frequencies. Also, expanding the M-Line to join up with the Canada Line will allow some pressure to be relieves from the busiest section of the Expo Line.

The new MkIII trains are 4-car sets, and when they need their 25-year refurb/renewal (around 2040), the 5th car can be added to the middle.

Even this 5-car MkIII configuration will still let all the doors open on an 80 metre platform, but other station renovations would need to be done to the mezzanines and elevators /escalators /stairs in order to handle the extra crowding brought by these "Skytrain MAX80" * trains.

* my new phrase for Skytrain sets that utilise the maximum length of the 80 metre platforms

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

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.

Surrey's problem is impatience, and at this point it's interesting what it's impatient for. It's been proven over and over that LRT hardly has any benefit over buses. People's transit experiences really won't improve all that much, and the only thing it has going for it is psychological. It's sexier, it encourages development etc...but it doesn't actually help you get anywhere faster.

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

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

The 99 has proven that LRT is obsolete; there is no place for it in cities. The B-Line carries 55,000 people a day, so there will never be a point where LRT will be useful: Either the bus can carry the demand, or if it can't then you can build a SkyTrain along the route. LRT is just a really, really expensive express bus on rails. It provides no real transportation benefit.

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

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.

See the argument I made in regard to ssiguy's post. Only every second train will go Langley, so people's habit of sitting or standing will not change. When it does run into capacity problems, an express or commuter rail train can be built instead. The Expo Line will likely never be extended past Langley, so it's really not that much more to build. The current Expo Line length of 29 kilometres + another 17 kilometres to Langley= 46 kilometres, not really all that long or unprecedented. Certainly not too long where building another line would be warranted.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Look, I get that you're not enthusiastic about money being spent on a somewhat more expensive SkyTrain, but your attempts to discredit such an extension are so typical of a Light Rail supporter - and so typically short-sighted.

How do you know the construction of SkyTrain means less people from the South of Fraser will be getting off at points in Surrey and Surrey City Centre? At the end of the day, Surrey City Centre is growing as a destination for commuters - regardless of what transit is going to be built. Even people from the North-of-Fraser will be coming here, via the existing SkyTrain, for jobs. I think you're a bit presumptuous to think that just because an extension of SkyTrain could take people as far as Vancouver, that everyone's going to be using it to commute to Vancouver. That's not going to stop people from ending their commutes at Surrey City Centre because of natural reasons to get off.

And, that's the beauty of SkyTrain. Apart from servicing to commutes to Surrey City Centre - and faster so - it's feasible to commute to the North-of-Fraser if you want or need. You can service people who, for example, could take on a higher-paying job matching their talents in a Metrotown office but live in South Langley. Vice-versa.

Consider the projected 2041 daily ridership:
LRT network - 166,000
SkyTrain, Bus Rapid Transit - 202,000

People will take advantage of the ability to use SkyTrain for a feasible commute to the North of Fraser - but these people won't necessarily be displacing the amount of Surrey-bound riders. In fact, these are people that likely wouldn't be riding transit in the first place if an LRT were built - it would take too much time. And those 166,000 riders, attracted otherwise to an LRT network to commute to points within Surrey, won't necessarily not ride just because there's a difference in the transit technology and alignment. I get the feeling they'd be more-so enthusiastic in riding, with services faster and more reliable.

Anyway, for concerns about capacity in the inner areas, there's a reason an Expo Line Upgrade Strategy is being acted on. In any case, SkyTrain has the capacity to handle additional North-of-Fraser bound commutes for years and years to come - and there's plenty of time for the region and cities to redirect growth and new job space so that more people might be tempted to find jobs at Metrotown and get off there, rather than commute to downtown Vancouver and clog the system at an inner-city choke-point.

By the way,

There are no drivers.

I also want to mention that it makes no sense to build LRT just to avoid having Surreyites leave the city for work. First of all, this admits that LRT is less convenient than SkyTrain. Second of all, we shouldn't socially engineer people to find work closer to home by providing them with lesser public transit. If people already take the bus to Surrey Central and go to work downtown, they'll just take the LRT to Surrey Central and go to work downtown. People will leave Surrey anyway, might as well give them the best way to do it. Besides, it's not like by extending SkyTrain rather than LRT people will never work in Surrey. They'll work wherever the jobs are.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

See the argument I made in regard to ssiguy's post. Only every second train will go Langley, so people's habit of sitting or standing will not change. When it does run into capacity problems, an express or commuter rail train can be built instead. The Expo Line will likely never be extended past Langley, so it's really not that much more to build. The current Expo Line length of 29 kilometres + another 17 kilometres to Langley= 46 kilometres, not really all that long or unprecedented. Certainly not too long where building another line would be warranted.

I want to make a suggestion that they could extend the LIM guideway to Langley. Then connect the guideway but omit the LIM component for Whalley, Newton and beyond Langley, while keeping the same third-rail system. This would effectively "book end" the Mark III service area, but allow new rolling stock compatible with the LIM track to use the same platforms in Surrey.

It would also allow using the same OMC's as well. I don't know if it would make economical sense to make LIM-less versions of the rolling stock that have the same profile. eg:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-centr...presentsinnoviametro3.bombardiercom.html
"Bombardier MITREC" propulsion and "Bombardier FLEXX Eco" Bogies.

BTW... Riyadh is spending 22 Billion to build 176km. A breakdown of who is building what is on http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/singl...etro-construction-contracts-awarded.html

Bombardier Transportation's US$383m share of the contract includes the supply of 47 two-car driverless Innovia Metro 300 trains with Mitrac traction equipment.

which Bombardier's trains are going on the 5.21Billion USD longest (40.7km) red line with 22 stations.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I want to make a suggestion that they could extend the LIM guideway to Langley. Then connect the guideway but omit the LIM component for Whalley, Newton and beyond Langley, while keeping the same third-rail system. This would effectively "book end" the Mark III service area, but allow new rolling stock compatible with the LIM track to use the same platforms in Surrey.

Taller, rotary-motor trains would not fit in the downtown tunnels and some stations with posts or other things not high above the train ceilings would need to be modified.

This is a major selling point of LIM stock, hugely responsible for its popularity in Japan. Lower train heights = smaller, cheaper tunnels. We saved perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars giving our rapid transit system a connection in downtown Vancouver, by repurposing an existing freight tunnel. When we were planning the regional rapid transit system with LRT, long before, the line would have required a new tunnel and due to the cost it would not have taken the current route traversing important places in the downtown peninsula - instead whisking passengers from Main Street to pretty much Waterfront.

Continuing with more LIM stock not only acknowledges those savings, but creates more long-term savings because maintenance staff do not necessarily need to be trained anew (or hired anew) to work with different motor technology.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Taller, rotary-motor trains would not fit in the downtown tunnels and some stations with posts or other things not high above the train ceilings would need to be modified.

This is a major selling point of LIM stock, hugely responsible for its popularity in Japan. Lower train heights = smaller, cheaper tunnels. We saved perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars giving our rapid transit system a connection in downtown Vancouver, by repurposing an existing freight tunnel. When we were planning the regional rapid transit system with LRT, long before, the line would have required a new tunnel and due to the cost it would not have taken the current route traversing important places in the downtown peninsula - instead whisking passengers from Main Street to pretty much Waterfront.

Continuing with more LIM stock not only acknowledges those savings, but creates more long-term savings because maintenance staff do not necessarily need to be trained anew (or hired anew) to work with different motor technology.

Ehhh, I wasn't suggesting sending the non-LIM trains over the Skybridge except to the OMC. Rather using different rolling stock that still works with SelTrac to run routes that terminate at Surrey. This was mostly at the suggestion to a previous poster's suggestion about express trains. I know it's a silly idea. Sending Skytrain all the way to ... say Chilliwack is insane, but that's ultimately what RftV wants (as a tram), despite how economically nonviable that would be.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Ehhh, I wasn't suggesting sending the non-LIM trains over the Skybridge except to the OMC. Rather using different rolling stock that still works with SelTrac to run routes that terminate at Surrey. This was mostly at the suggestion to a previous poster's suggestion about express trains. I know it's a silly idea. Sending Skytrain all the way to ... say Chilliwack is insane, but that's ultimately what RftV wants, despite how economically nonviable that would be.

So we're going to just give in to the demands of a small, manically biased group of Fraser Valley rail nuts who: 1. largely don't live within the TransLink jurisdiction, 2. aren't even interested in endorsing (let alone commenting at all on) their regions' own efforts to create the first rapid bus transit link to/from Langley?

Beats me, but it would be madness to actually acknowledge a group that doesn't have "better transit for citizens" in its best interests, but rather is moreso for "no more SkyTrain" based on unfound fears of taxpayer gouging.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

So we're going to just give in to the demands of a small, manically biased group of Fraser Valley rail nuts who: 1. largely don't live within the TransLink jurisdiction, 2. aren't even interested in endorsing (let alone commenting at all on) their regions' own efforts to create the first rapid bus transit link to/from Langley?

Beats me, but it would be madness to actually acknowledge a group that doesn't have "better transit for citizens" in its best interests, but rather is moreso for "no more SkyTrain" based on unfound fears of taxpayer gouging.

Pfft... I know they're nuts. But sometimes we never explore alternatives because we're too set for or against a certain technology for political gain.

And I think "that group" is exactly two people. As I only ever see Malcom and Dan ever post the same quackpot claims, every time Skytrain shows up on news sites. Old guys nostalgic for a time they got to ride the BCE Interurban. A line that hasn't run since 1950.

I like this quote from http://www.bcauditor.com/files/publications/2013/report_15/report/OAGBC%20Evergreen%20Line.pdf

“…a large, complex and costly project should be supported by a substantial business case…”
Source: CAMF Guidelines, Page 17

Better explaining project costs and ridership estimates
The business case material presented to Treasury Board did not adequately explain the
basis for the difference between the options’ costs and the basis and reliability of the
ridership estimates for the preferred SkyTrain option.
Project costs – The 2008 business case did not adequately explain the small difference
in the cost estimates for the northwest and southeast SkyTrain options. It also did
not explain the closeness of the costs between the SkyTrain line and the Light Rapid
Transit (LRT) option on the same alignment. This issue provoked keen public interest
because of the expectation that LRT would be significantly cheaper than the SkyTrain.
When verifying the costs, we again found an incomplete set of supporting
documentation. However, through a combination of document review and interviews
we were able to verify that the costs formed a reliable basis for choosing the project
scope. In particular, we were satisfied that the LRT cost estimates were within the range
of estimates for other contemporary North American systems.

So the "cheaper" LRT argument is dead.

We concluded that the recommendation that the Evergreen Line take the form of a
SkyTrain extension using a northern route between Lougheed and Douglas College
was based on a reasonable appreciation of the costs, and that it is likely to best meet
government’s policy objectives.

And this burns the negative NPV options.

I seriously can't find a business case that Surrey could use.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Kisai

That's pretty funny. The citizens of this region would get more benefit from building our own rail line to Bellingham... and it might be cheaper.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Kisai

And this burns the negative NPV options.

I seriously can't find a business case that Surrey could use.

If you haven't been paying attention to the news of late, the city says they're going to make one to submit for the feds. Probably a new one - they can't exactly triumph the TransLink case which is saying <1:1 now, can they?

I can't wait for this day. My prediction, based on talks I've had with City Staff (particularly Paul Lee, who also commented on the Globe and Mail that detailed design of LRT is at least 8 months out) is that they're going to try and consider development outcomes as part of the business case - overshadowing the actual effects on transportation, and doing something no rapid transit project business case here in Metro Vancouver has done before.

We need to be ready for when that day comes - to have a look at that document, point out the issues, and appeal those issues to the provincial and federal government. That is, if the City releases it (and they better, or that's what we should pressure them to do).

If you weren't paying attention to the Twitter town hall on BC's transpo plan earlier this week, Minister Todd Stone was making many comments - including in response to myself - on the need for any major capital projects to have a positive business case. That may not shape well for Surrey's LRT since the current business case isn't positive (over 1:1), and whatever business case document coming up could be rather questionable. So I think our best chance to really overturn this LRT proposal is to await that day - and make sure everyone else, including Minister Stone himself, is doing so.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

If you haven't been paying attention to the news of late, the city says they're going to make one to submit for the feds. Probably a new one - they can't exactly triumph the TransLink case which is saying <1:1 now, can they?

I can't wait for this day. My prediction, based on talks I've had with City Staff (particularly Paul Lee, who also commented on the Globe and Mail that detailed design of LRT is at least 8 months out) is that they're going to try and consider development outcomes as part of the business case - overshadowing the actual effects on transportation, and doing something no rapid transit project business case here in Metro Vancouver has done before.

We need to be ready for when that day comes - to have a look at that document, point out the issues, and appeal those issues to the provincial and federal government. That is, if the City releases it (and they better, or that's what we should pressure them to do).

If you weren't paying attention to the Twitter town hall on BC's transpo plan earlier this week, Minister Todd Stone was making many comments - including in response to myself - on the need for any major capital projects to have a positive business case. That may not shape well for Surrey's LRT since the current business case isn't positive (over 1:1), and whatever business case document coming up could be rather questionable. So I think our best chance to really overturn this LRT proposal is to await that day - and make sure everyone else, including Minister Stone himself, is doing so.

"You can take the survey to share your thoughts about transportation priorities between October 14, 2014 and December 12, 2014 at 4 p.m."

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/transportationplan/

[xd_1771]

That too

[Jebby]

If Surrey is going to go for an LRT they should limit it to a King George/104th route and save Fraser Highway for Skytrain out to Langley.

Then they should rezone everything along King George and 104th to 10 FSR along the both streets sliding down gradually to 3.5 FSR 4 or 5 blocks away from the route.

[logicbomb]

Snipped.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I can't wait for this day. My prediction, based on talks I've had with City Staff (particularly Paul Lee, who also commented on the Globe and Mail that detailed design of LRT is at least 8 months out) is that they're going to try and consider development outcomes as part of the business case - overshadowing the actual effects on transportation, and doing something no rapid transit project business case here in Metro Vancouver has done before.

Can't stand him. I recall him saying something along the lines of Skytrain technology being outdated and LRT being a key cog in future transportation plans. He comes off being arrogant and not willing to listen to any counter-arguments.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Snipped.

Can't stand him. I recall him saying something along the lines of Skytrain technology being outdated and LRT being a key cog in future transportation plans. He comes off being arrogant and not willing to listen to any counter-arguments.

Can't comment whether he does believe that or not, but AFAIK he was in charge with the Evergreen Line (as an LRT project) before he came around to Surrey. Also did some work back in '93 on the GVRD transit plan of the time. At the end of the day, I think it's definite that he's going to come off as arrogant - he's the city's pet. If the city wants LRT, then he's in charge of the work to get that moving.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Can't comment whether he does believe that or not, but AFAIK he was in charge with the Evergreen Line (as an LRT project) before he came around to Surrey. Also did some work back in '93 on the GVRD transit plan of the time. At the end of the day, I think it's definite that he's going to come off as arrogant - he's the city's pet. If the city wants LRT, then he's in charge of the work to get that moving.

http://udi.bc.ca/sites/default/files/eve...eakfast%20Regional%20Rapid%20Transit.pdf

This is what he presented. If this is the only thing being shown to Mayors, developers and those impacted, the business case is super-weak due to the dishonest lack of information.

[Rational Plan3]

Sigh, you accuse me of being an LRT zealot, when you argue that Skytrain is all things to all people.

A proper tram system can shift large amounts or people at much higher frequencies bandied about on these pages, and saying that they can't operate more frequently than every three minutes. Big systems with long trams can shift levels seen by low spec metro's, certainly better than the some of the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 frequencies some Amercian subways runs at.

Translink has an institutional blindness in favour of Skytrain which is perfectly understandable as that is what it operates and it has lot of political and emotional capital tied up in it. This is perfectly logical. Skytrain is the bedrock of your transit system so adding extensions is logical as it increases it networktivity.

But it has limitations, made worse by Vancouvers built geography. A metro is a system with frequent stops, and unless built with four tracks in the first place no capacity to operate as an express system. It can only be built so long before it runs into limitations. The fact is transit can only serve dense employment centres. The City centre, Broadway major universities and big malls. But most of Vancouvers employment is not at these places it's sprawled over large industrial sites or office parks. Therefore the main market for long distance commuters will be to Vancouver city centre. That's a long slow metro ride from South of the Fraser especially if you start extending it out to Langley or beyond.

You say, 'well only half of the trains will go beyond Surrey City Centre'. The two consequences of that is that means that the line beyond Surrey City Centre has only half the capacity and thus the benefit cost ratio is also now halved, which is not doing it's business case any favours. Plus how will people in Royal Oak feel about only being able to get on half the trains arriving at their station?

If Translink wants to build Skytrains then it should concentrate on building them in built up areas, creating a proper network. They should really be thinking about where they would build a third line from the City Centre and to where in the city, so it relieved the original route and served new areas.

If all Surrey wants to do is improve transit within Surrey than a tram system will be perfectly acceptable, it might even encourage denser development along the corridors to Guildford and Newtown.

The proper solution to a vastly expanded Suburban hinterland is an express commuter system with express tunnels from the centre connecting with edges of the Skytrain system and then out to various towns along the valley either via upgraded railroads or new alignments. But such a system requires a very large spend, for what is essentially medium size metropolitan area and I don't think any of your political parties really look at transport spending in a long term view. What is needed is for everyone to get together form whatever your equivalent is of a royal commission or study by the great and good, by the end of which everyone agrees on the goals and roughly how to achieve it. Otherwise contentious issues become a huge bun fight, with each party competing with their plan, overturning the other party's at the next election. Which considering the timescales of infrastructure spending means it's a miracle if anything is done.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

But such a system requires a very large spend, for what is essentially medium size metropolitan area and I don't think any of your political parties really look at transport spending in a long term view. What is needed is for everyone to get together form whatever your equivalent is of a royal commission or study by the great and good, by the end of which everyone agrees on the goals and roughly how to achieve it. Otherwise contentious issues become a huge bun fight, with each party competing with their plan, overturning the other party's at the next election. Which considering the timescales of infrastructure spending means it's a miracle if anything is done.

Metro Vancouver's problem is that the politicians keep downloading responsibilities to the municipalities, and then cutting the budget. Like efficiencies will just magically appear once the government stops meddling... but they don't stop meddling.

Translink however was strictly an effort by the Province to download responsibility to the Mayors, and then when they kept fighting over things, they were told they're no longer allowed to do anything but approve taxes. Which is the way it should be... but then the Province made them responsible for other road infrastructure, and that just confuses residents about who is ultimately to blame.

But the entire issue about Surrey is political. You'll notice that the arguments on this forum in this thread are more frequent than the one for the UBC Broadway line. The issues are the same, but the NPV benefit of building the UBC Broadway line is nearly twice that of building any of the Surrey options.

There are technical limitations that will eventually show up if we only have one form of transit linking all the town centers, but that doesn't mean we have to run every single train from Waterfront to Langley, nor UBC to Larfarge Lake. If all the rails are connected somewhere, that reduces the need of building extra OMC's, which are large expenses. For this reason it's disappointing that the Canada line wasn't also built to use the same trains, and will forever be subject to the "duplication of effort and costs" that Translink gets derided for having. (Skytrain (BCRTC), Canada Line(ProTrans BC), West Coast Express, and Coast Mountain Bus Company)

It costs more to operate the Canada Line than expected because a third party is being paid to operate it. This would also be the case of adding any at-grade rail, and since it would be more expensive to operate to begin with, it just doesn't make sense.

If it was just a case of the city building what it wants without any political interference from any level of government, Surrey would likely have gone ahead with light rail 20 years ago, and then cut it back, replacing it with buses when the ridership didn't appear.