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

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

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.

Exactly. LRT in Surrey isn't about providing better transportation options and improving the area's transit experience. It's about buying a bunch of pretty trains with nice stations that the politicians can slap their name on.

I too hope that once they build the "L" line that people will wake up and see what a terrible solution it is, and lobby the city for SkyTrain along Fraser Highway.

[logan5]

If I'm understanding correctly, Surrey LRT will be part of the transit referendum, along with a subway system for Broadway. We desperately need Skytrain along Broadway, but we certainly don't need LRT in Surrey. I would vote yes for Broadway, but vote no for Surrey LRT. So what do I do? IMO, Surrey will jeopardize more important transit projects over their need for an unnecessary toy.

It won't be long before Volvo's road train technology will give BRT the same capacity as LRT. So Surrey would have us pay over a billion dollars more (over BRT) for a service that provides a better image.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by logan5

If I'm understanding correctly, Surrey LRT will be part of the transit referendum, along with a subway system for Broadway. We desperately need Skytrain along Broadway, but we certainly don't need LRT in Surrey. I would vote yes for Broadway, but vote no for Surrey LRT. So what do I do? IMO, Surrey will jeopardize more important transit projects over their need for an unnecessary toy.

It won't be long before Volvo's road train technology will give BRT the same capacity as LRT. So Surrey would have us pay over a billion dollars more (over BRT) for a service that provides a better image.

I think we're getting just one question carefully worded. eg

"Do you support Transit 2040's goals of:
(list of everything that includes the Broadway Subway and Surrey Light Rail)
This will entail the following changes to taxes in the Metro Vancouver area (list of penny pinching taxes)
[ ] Yes I support the above changes , [ ] No I do not support the above changes."

I don't think we are going to get any multiple choice questions. The fact that we didn't have this at the same time as the Civic election just needlessly wasted more money anyway.

[Metro-One]

Just vote yes.

Nearly everything in this package is solid (New 4 lane Patullo, but expandable to 6, huge increase in night buses, many new B-line routes throughout the metro, the Broadway Subway to Arbutus (the most important part, very excited to have a true underground to underground exchange at Cambie), new cars for skytrain and the Canada Line (plus all stations on the Canada Line being built out to 50 meters), Expo upgrades, etc...

To be honest, while I prefer the RRT to Langley and BRT along 104th and King George, I am okay with the BRT portion being built as LRT.

It will add another layer to our transit system (i actually enjoy having different rolling stock on the Canada Line, feels big city to have different train vehicles on different lines sometimes).

That being said, the Fraser Highway portion should still be an extension of the Expo Line to Langley, and luckily this is the last phase of the Surrey LRT, meaning that there is still 5 years or so to have that portion changed to RRT. Remember the Evergreen Line at one point was going to be LRT, but luckily it got saved and is being built as Skytrain, the same will hopefully happen for along Fraser Highway.

Actually, when you think about it, Vancouver has dodged the LRT bullet many times. The M-Line was originally going to be LRT, as was the Canada Line, and the Evergreen Line. We got lucky 3 times there!

[Pinion]

Yeah, if they didn't include LRT for Surrey you'd get a majority no vote in Surrey. Just let them have their shiny new thing.

Fraser highway RRT eventually would be wise but the rest needs to be handled by other options.

[Caliplanner]

Henbo if the LRT and RRT options were virtually the same in cost then why choose an option that is potentially slower and more dangerous at grade (re: LRT)? As per the notion of lower taxes (given lower public mass transit spending) leading to greater propensities for consumer spending, such private expenditure girded economic growth (if it really does occur given the ongoing twin conundrum of growing income inequality/debt) will only serve to fuel greater/costly transportation congestion (in the absence of effective mass transit); a reality that then kills the said golden goose of desired prosperity (that results from given economic expansion)!

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

Henbo if the LRT and RRT options were virtually the same in cost then why choose an option that is potentially slower and more dangerous at grade (re: LRT)?

Thats the same question I'm asking. Here is TransLinks findings on the two options (Last page: LRT 1 vs. RRT 1A)
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...rey_rapid_transit_study_infographic.ashx

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

As per the notion of lower taxes (given lower public mass transit spending) leading to greater propensities for consumer spending, such private expenditure girded economic growth (if it really does occur given the ongoing twin conundrum of growing income inequality/debt) will only serve to fuel greater/costly transportation congestion (in the absence of effective mass transit); a reality that then kills the said golden goose of desired prosperity (that results from given economic expansion)!

And like I said its a matter of government priorities. Sure they could spend less money on other services, tax people more (creating less disposable income which can be used to pay off debt) and build better transportation infrastructure. But they can't do both. (Unless you get creative financially via methods such as municipal bonds, but i digress...)

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

jeez RRT has more then twice as many new daily riders, 36,000 more daily boarding's, yet that is the choice that doesn't win. and on top of that it is barely more expensive. great decision TransLink; oh, wait, or should i say Surrey.

[logan5]

I'm sure everybody gets it, but just in case. Deducing the math from Translink's estimates...

RRT - $105 million/km

LRT - $70 million/km

BRT - $22.5 million/km

This is what kills me. BRT and LRT travel time are almost identical and look at the price difference.

I wonder about the estimates for daily boardings though. For BRT the study says 180 000 boardings per day. That would make the corridors covered in the study (2041 estimate) busier than Broadway is today. I find that hard to believe. If ridership is split evenly between each corridor, here's what you get.

Guildford - 22 000 boardings per day/5 km's

King George - 83 000 boardings per day/19 km's

Fraser Hwy - 75 000 boardings per day/17 km's

Broadway - 55 000 boardings per day/13 km's

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

jeez RRT has more then twice as many new daily riders, 36,000 more daily boarding's, yet that is the choice that doesn't win. and on top of that it is barely more expensive. great decision TransLink; oh, wait, or should i say Surrey.

That's the worst part: when people realise LRT is a joke, Translink will be the one blamed, not the city.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

That's the worst part: when people realise LRT is a joke, Translink will be the one blamed, not the city.

Which will make people even more reluctant to give TransLink money in the future.

[GlassCity]

I'm still saving hope because of what went down with the Evergreen Line, but I know it's highly unlikely.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Exactly. LRT in Surrey isn't about providing better transportation options and improving the area's transit experience. It's about buying a bunch of pretty trains with nice stations that the politicians can slap their name on.

I too hope that once they build the "L" line that people will wake up and see what a terrible solution it is, and lobby the city for SkyTrain along Fraser Highway.

I think it was pretty much let go when the regional transportation plan, which was supposed to be conducted by TransLink, was put back into the hands of Mayors (ergo, blindsided pro-LRT Watts is in control). That was the nail in the coffin. The board complies with what the Mayors want, on the premise that Mayors are voted out if citizens don't like something - that's a problem when people are already mislead about Light Rail, there's little attention given by media to the opposition efforts, and then the slate mentality dominates everything on its own.

Even TransLink, I'd think, would not have proceeded with at-grade rail. Minister Stone sure isn't amused by the lack of a positive business case, if his remarks on Twitter say anything.

[Caliplanner]

Originally Posted by Henbo

Thats the same question I'm asking. Here is TransLinks findings on the two options (Last page: LRT 1 vs. RRT 1A)
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...rey_rapid_transit_study_infographic.ashx



And like I said its a matter of government priorities. Sure they could spend less money on other services, tax people more (creating less disposable income which can be used to pay off debt) and build better transportation infrastructure. But they can't do both. (Unless you get creative financially via methods such as municipal bonds, but i digress...)

I will say this for you Canadians, you do spend more on social/public services than we do here in the states where capitalism tends to dictate less government expenditures on "the poor" and more on the needs of wealthy corporate America.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

I will say this for you Canadians, you do spend more on social/public services than we do here in the states where capitalism tends to dictate less government expenditures on "the poor" and more on the needs of wealthy corporate America.

1) That's not accurate
2) That's not capitalism, that's corporatism.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logan5

If I'm understanding correctly, Surrey LRT will be part of the transit referendum, along with a subway system for Broadway. We desperately need Skytrain along Broadway, but we certainly don't need LRT in Surrey. I would vote yes for Broadway, but vote no for Surrey LRT. So what do I do? IMO, Surrey will jeopardize more important transit projects over their need for an unnecessary toy.

Vote yes. Each project on its own is small compared to the overall proposal. And really, you're just voting for funding not the actual proposals themselves.

At the end of the day, cooler heads may still prevail when actual planning moves forward. So you may not end up with LRT down Fraser Highway. I think LRT down King George and 104th is almost a done deal though at this stage because Translink only wants BRT down there and Surrey seems steadfast it wants something other than BRT due largely to the stigma associated with buses.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I think it was pretty much let go when the regional transportation plan, which was supposed to be conducted by TransLink, was put back into the hands of Mayors (ergo, blindsided pro-LRT Watts is in control). That was the nail in the coffin. The board complies with what the Mayors want, on the premise that Mayors are voted out if citizens don't like something - that's a problem when people are already mislead about Light Rail, there's little attention given by media to the opposition efforts, and then the slate mentality dominates everything on its own.

Even TransLink, I'd think, would not have proceeded with at-grade rail. Minister Stone sure isn't amused by the lack of a positive business case, if his remarks on Twitter say anything.

So ultimately the Province is to blame is what you're really saying because unfortunately our government doesn't want to govern and make decisions which they were elected to make.

The Province is more interested in buying shiny new mythical LNG proposals than transportation or anything else for that matter. Even though regional transportation is a Provincial responsibility they threw it over to the Mayor's to "take the fall" so to speak for their own disinterest and inaction.

So if we end up with LRT in places we don't want, (1) you can blame the Mayor's council for not really listening to the people but (2) you should also blame the Province for not being a government and governing and/or taking responsibility for their actions.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

Henbo if the LRT and RRT options were virtually the same in cost then why choose an option that is potentially slower and more dangerous at grade (re: LRT)? As per the notion of lower taxes (given lower public mass transit spending) leading to greater propensities for consumer spending, such private expenditure girded economic growth (if it really does occur given the ongoing twin conundrum of growing income inequality/debt) will only serve to fuel greater/costly transportation congestion (in the absence of effective mass transit); a reality that then kills the said golden goose of desired prosperity (that results from given economic expansion)!

Optics.

Negative words are used when describing Skytrain, while positive words are used to describe LRT. While the words are factually true, the context and emotions of the words carry more weight than their actual implications.

When presented in a certain light, LRT is beautiful. It "integrates" with the street. It is "easy" to access. Whereas Skytrain is an elevated "blight". Some people think the elevated guideway will "cut" communities in half, as there is a visual "barrier". That visual is more powerful than the fact that having track on the ground physically cuts communities in half.

LRT is also presented as cheaper based on cheap builds in other parts of the world, ignoring expensive LRT rollouts. Portland and Calgary have/will have recent expansions of LRT that cost more per KM than our Evergreen line. But hey, there was that one time someone built LRT at $10 million/km, therefore cheaper.

There is also the recent issues with Skytrain that have people concerned about its expansion. But no one (outside of here) brings up potential concerns of LRT. Speed is one. In Portland, LRT speed limit is 35 MPH on Burnside, where the LRT runs unsegregated, through intersections, in the middle of the street (it is in it's own ROW, but it is "integrated" with the street). That is very similar to what it will have to be like in Surrey. That's less than 60km/h.

I don't think many people have thought through the safety and operational implications of a light rail system. It is either going to be slow, or segregated, with all kinds of barriers and crossing gates.

The other thing is Burnside was reduced to 1 lane in each direction travel. But that works there because it is flanked by 2 even larger roads, or you can go around it on I-84.

Here is the future 104 ave (with trains that can't go faster than the current bus).



and the closest I can think of in Calgary is this stretch


Note how the track is separated from society by a fence so the trains can travel faster, and the only way to link both sides across this "integration" is by the overhead walkway.

Here is Burnaby, where Skytrain "cuts" through a neighborhood, housing on one side of the tracks, a major mall on the other... such a bad "cut" indeed. Hell, you can take a nap on the grass directly under where trains travel unhindered at 80km/h.



When you take away the inflammatory words and actually look at implementations, Skytrain is well "integrated" into our city's fabric and doesn't "cut" anything when it is elevated.

[GlassCity]

When you really think about it, all this alleged public support is likely coming from people that literally don't even know what LRT looks like. They've been told that it's cheaper and prettier, so they're all for it. Even on this forum there's been some confusion about the two main forms of LRT:

The segregated, almost commuter rail-like kind with crossing gates like in Calgary:


rapid transit sucks in calgary by AMetalnikov, on Flickr

And the integrated, street-running LRT like in Portland, which is the kind Surrey is looking at:


it sucks in Portland too by AMetalnikov, on Flickr

And since Surrey is likely going to build like the one in Portland, its speed will be limited, due to level crossings. It also obviously takes up a lot of road space. My only hope is that once people ride it and see how much money they spent on something that literally doesn't save them any time, they'll understand what a big mistake it was. I just think people don't know what they're getting themselves into.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Here is Burnaby, where Skytrain "cuts" through a neighborhood, housing on one side of the tracks, a major mall on the other... such a bad "cut" indeed. Hell, you can take a nap on the grass directly under where trains travel unhindered at 80km/h.



When you take away the inflammatory words and actually look at implementations, Skytrain is well "integrated" into our city's fabric and doesn't "cut" anything when it is elevated.

The original Skytrain buildout (ending at New Westminster) was mostly along the existing BC Electric ROW. So for all intents, that always was a railway corridor and nothing to "divide." Had the Expo line been built entirely at-grade with some other then-new light rail technology, we'd instead be having "war on the car" arguments like in the US, and it would never have been expanded into Surrey to begin with.

But the real motive behind the Skytrain Hate can be seen right on the front page of RFTV http://bit.ly/1BiNwYr , if you've never read his stuff before. I wish he would kindly step aside because he is just making things worse, because he endorses Light Rail with one hand, and then turns around and then complains when Surrey does.

LightRailLinks has a whole 89 likes on facebook. SkytrainForSurrey has more than twice that at 213. Neither of these are anywhere near a significant number of people.

Talking about transit is nowhere near as interesting as squee'ing over cat videos on the internet.

The fact that we even have an option for the Skytrain puts us ahead of every place that has Light Rail and no Metro, because many of these places that built light rail will never have a Metro for the foreseeable future.