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

[xd_1771]

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?

That's not how benefit-cost ratios are calculated, and the positive ratio put forth with SkyTrain to Langley already accounts for this. Again, you're suggesting that everyone taking the extended Expo Line is going to be heading to downtown Vancouver and is not going to get off anywhere but downtown Vancouver. There are several destinations on the line, including Surrey City Centre and points like Fleetwood, where riders may choose to get off. Development demand will somewhat dictate where this will happen, but it's not an exclusively downtown-Vancouver centered ordeal as you're trying to misleadingly suggest.

[Large Cat]

Does anybody know if it will be possible to bring bikes on the new LRT in Surrey? Either on the front or inside the cars themselves?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Does anybody know if it will be possible to bring bikes on the new LRT in Surrey? Either on the front or inside the cars themselves?

It's not even on the drawing board yet. If you read other forums (be it for or hate for light rail) you'll often notice how bike and wheelchair unfriendly light rail is because the trains can't kneel like a bus does. The wheelchair ramps have to be built into the station platform for extra costs. Fortunately most bike riders are strong enough to lift their bikes. But that doesn't mean that the interior of the LRV can fit bikes. Light Rail Vehicles that are designed like streetcar/trams, have bike racks in the front or rear of the vehicle. Vehicles that are more like metros (eg Confederation line in Ottawa) do not.

If what Surrey keeps touting is something like Portland's system:
http://www.trimet.org/howtoride/bikes/bikesonmax.htm

So it's within reason that a "bike rack" could exist inside a LRV, but it might come at the expense of a Wheelchair accessible spot.

Personally, I think exterior racks (like a bus) are a safety hazard for the train, since if the bike falls off, it ends up under the train and can derail it.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It's not even on the drawing board yet. If you read other forums (be it for or hate for light rail) you'll often notice how bike and wheelchair unfriendly light rail is because the trains can't kneel like a bus does. The wheelchair ramps have to be built into the station platform for extra costs. Fortunately most bike riders are strong enough to lift their bikes. But that doesn't mean that the interior of the LRV can fit bikes. Light Rail Vehicles that are designed like streetcar/trams, have bike racks in the front or rear of the vehicle. Vehicles that are more like metros (eg Confederation line in Ottawa) do not.

If what Surrey keeps touting is something like Portland's system:
http://www.trimet.org/howtoride/bikes/bikesonmax.htm

So it's within reason that a "bike rack" could exist inside a LRV, but it might come at the expense of a Wheelchair accessible spot.

Personally, I think exterior racks (like a bus) are a safety hazard for the train, since if the bike falls off, it ends up under the train and can derail it.

Damn.

I guess what I'll hope for then is that they'll do both: add wheelchair spots and also a standing bike rack within each train. I heard about those racks on the Portland MAX system. When I take transit 90% of the time I am doing one or the other, pushing someone in a wheelchair or rolling my own bike on, so obviously this is pretty important for me lol. Luckily those parts of Surrey are unlikely candidates for any of my trips, although if it ends up going down to White Rock it would be very nice for the line to be accessible.

[nname]

TransLink had renamed the Surrey Rapid Transit Project page into Surrey Light Rail Transit project, and released a RFP for phase 3.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

has anyone asked Langley how they feel about never getting SkyTrain? (with that plan down Fraser Highway they never will)

[Metro-One]

Dang... The Fraser Highway portion should be an extension of the Expo Line to Langley.

LRT on 104 and King George is okay, but sad to hear that our backbone network will now always have a missing segment.

On the good news, it looks as if Broadway will for sure be skytrain. Also it is nice that PoCo is only interested in skytrain as well.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by nname

TransLink had renamed the Surrey Rapid Transit Project page into Surrey Light Rail Transit project, and released a RFP for phase 3.

But......

TransLink's report clearly finds, for about the same capital cost and operating budget, the RRT option delivers twice as many new riders as the LRT option.....

I know Surrey's council is in love with LRT.. but.. like....

[GlassCity]

Thank you so much for posting this. I know this sounds ridiculous, but this has honestly ruined my night. This will be an enormous mistake, and none of the politicians give a crap because it'll look pretty. I hope Surrey is happy being a second rate city within the region forever now, with a transit system to match it.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also it is nice that PoCo is only interested in skytrain as well.

It's unlikely PoCo will get rapid transit anytime in the foreseeable future. If the NIMBYs didn't have their way and decisions were made because of best decision instead of politics, perhaps-but too late. Evergreen line was supposed to run along Guildford Way from Port Moody through to Pinetree in Coquitlam. If that happened it would have terminated at Coquitlam Central instead of Lafarge Lake. From Coquitlam Central it would have been a simple extension along the tracks to PoCo and even Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, one day.

[nname]

The Evergreen Line includes the construction for the first 127m of guideway and tracks of PoCo branch as part of the project

[red-paladin]

Yeah, Poco may not be the highest priority after Surrey and UBC, but due to foresight on the Evergreen Line, it will be one of the cheapest and most convenient projects to build. Having a municipal government on the Poco side that is 100% for it also makes it a lot easier.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Thank you so much for posting this. I know this sounds ridiculous, but this has honestly ruined my night. This will be an enormous mistake, and none of the politicians give a crap because it'll look pretty. I hope Surrey is happy being a second rate city within the region forever now, with a transit system to match it.

They won't be so in love with it once it becomes a suicide magnet. I sure hope Translink isn't going to be on the hook for liability costs of operating it.

[Millennium2002]

The vandalism, unreliability and suicides are purely afterthoughts at this point. It doesn't matter if TransLink has to pay more for liabilities, repairs, and upgrades... All that counts are the shiny new trains and stations when they do their photo-ops.

I really hope at this point that they do King George and 104th first... And that some provincial intervention happens for the Fraser Hwy route... But I'm not optimistic that the politicians can see that far or whether there is the will to deviate from this short-sighted vision.

[Metro-One]

104 and King George will be first. Fraser Highway won't start until a couple years after the first 2 lines open. This does give me some relief that by that time it will be noted that skytrain backbone is the best choice to connect Langley City Centre. Also, it appears even with LRT there will be a km or so of elevated guideway in Langley.

[Caliplanner]

allan_kuan this comment isn't intended to be trollish but that's the downside of "capitalism" in the delivery of critical social/public (transportation) development for the masses.....re: the need to cut (development) costs (in the name of "profitability") thereby precipitating a lack of effective long-term planning/project execution that makes cents.....ooops I mean, sense! Thus, I concur with your analysis that politicians here are shortsighted as to the "flaws' of at grade light rail in a rapidly growing urban region given their (project) limiting preoccupation with budgets in a service industry that is hardly "profitable" by the given nature of its social equity function!

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

104 and King George will be first. Fraser Highway won't start until a couple years after the first 2 lines open. This does give me some relief that by that time it will be noted that skytrain backbone is the best choice to connect Langley City Centre. Also, it appears even with LRT there will be a km or so of elevated guideway in Langley.

that's correct. Even Surrey's new mayor promised LRT in 4 years is only referring to the line that will be "L-shaped" along 104 Avenue to Guildford, and then along King George Boulevard to Newton.

Phase 2 refers to the Fraser Highway extension.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

allan_kuan this comment isn't intended to be trollish but that's the downside of "capitalism" in the delivery of critical social/public (transportation) development for the masses.....re: the need to cut (development) costs (in the name of "profitability")

The decision was not made because of a flaw in capitalism, but because of the governments priorities. A government prefers to spend less money on a transportation project because they would rather spend the money on other projects (community centres, waste disposal), or leave more spending money for people in the form of lower taxes. Its all about opportunity costs.

That being said, the LRT and RRT option were virtually the same in cost, so I think there is more to this then just that.

[logicbomb]

Ugh, this is so damn stupid. The City of Surrey has grossly underestimated the costs of property acquisition along 104th. Some structures along the 104th corridor will have to be demolished between KGB and 150th St to keep 4 lanes. Though many plans are calling in a reduction of capacity, meaning 104th would be reduced to single lane traffic each way.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

that's correct. Even Surrey's new mayor promised LRT in 4 years is only referring to the line that will be "L-shaped" along 104 Avenue to Guildford, and then along King George Boulevard to Newton.

Phase 2 refers to the Fraser Highway extension.

That L-shaped segment (LRT4) also has negative NPV. For every 1$ spent, you get 27 cents in benefits.

At this point in time I hope that the City of Surrey becomes entirely responsible and liable for operating it if any part of it is built as at-grade surface rail, and Translink just provides consultancy to time it with the bus and Skytrain.



There is no reason Translink should be made to budget operational costs for this White Elephant when it's clearly not a cost effective option (Both BRT an d RRT were more cost effective.)