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

[GMasterAres]

My wife tried to meet me at Guildford yesterday by taking the 96-B. She waiting 10 minutes at Surrey Central then proceeded to walk to 104th then up 104th. She finally got to Whalley Boulevard and still no 96-B went by. She waited another 10 minutes at the top at WB and caught a different bus to Guildford. No 96-B.

This was peak hour. So basically 30 minutes no bus.

That is exactly why I loath BRT without dedicated lanes and right-of-way. It is unpredictable and frustrating as all hell. LRT if given dedication and row would be better but nothing beats the predictable SkyTrain.

People have bitched recently over the 3 or 4 service outages during bad times, but how many real service outages have we had in 25 years?

Nothing given how many trains go back and fourth every day. I still think SkyTrain is well worth the investment as a backbone transportation system. LRT/BRT should be reserved for lighter less-important runs.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

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.

My biggest issue with Surreys justification for LRT is that they list all the benefits that the skytrain has brought to the areas around it. Then they just assume that it will apply for LRT because it is "rapid transit" like the skytrain is. But they won't assume that BRT would give you same benefits even though it is "rapid transit". Surrey is using a gut feeling to choose LRT instead of sound research. They aren't even trying to find savings like using lighter streetcars in a ROW instead of full LRT which would probably have the same travel times.

Ultimately though I would vote for the referendum even if the LRT is on it. The other pieces are for the most part well thought out and will benefit the region.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by jhausner

My wife tried to meet me at Guildford yesterday by taking the 96-B. She waiting 10 minutes at Surrey Central then proceeded to walk to 104th then up 104th. She finally got to Whalley Boulevard and still no 96-B went by. She waited another 10 minutes at the top at WB and caught a different bus to Guildford. No 96-B.

This was peak hour. So basically 30 minutes no bus.

That is exactly why I loath BRT without dedicated lanes and right-of-way. It is unpredictable and frustrating as all hell. LRT if given dedication and row would be better but nothing beats the predictable SkyTrain.

People have bitched recently over the 3 or 4 service outages during bad times, but how many real service outages have we had in 25 years?

Nothing given how many trains go back and fourth every day. I still think SkyTrain is well worth the investment as a backbone transportation system. LRT/BRT should be reserved for lighter less-important runs.

The 96 B Line is a joke. No bus only lanes, no traffic priority signals, and no queue jumpers on 104th. It cannot function as a high frequency service unless Surrey decides to invest in the roads. No matter how you slice it. 104th could become a major choke point for any BRT service during rushhour.....or it could cause carmageddon if LRT is built.

I just take the #337 to Guildford during rushhour. I learned after regularly waiting 30-45 min for a B-Line in Nov.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Nothing given how many trains go back and fourth every day. I still think SkyTrain is well worth the investment as a backbone transportation system. LRT/BRT should be reserved for lighter less-important runs.

My problem with this line of thinking is what happens when these lighter less-important runs become major corridors and LRT is unable to satisfy the demand? There is no way any politician would support building a metro where LRT already exists.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

My problem with this line of thinking is what happens when these lighter less-important runs become major corridors and LRT is unable to satisfy the demand? There is no way any politician would support building a metro where LRT already exists.

I've been trying to think of a scenario that actually justifies Light Rail, and pretty much nowhere in North America (car-centric) has ever made sense for Light Rail except when there was already extensive existing heavy rail to reuse.

Everywhere else had the option of building new grade-separated rail (regardless if Unattended or not) and opted for "cheaper" light rail to lower capital costs. It's not considerably more expensive to grade separate all the crossings at time of construction, it IS substantially more expensive to install safety equipment, and many light rail systems operate with little or none, including the C-train.

Listen to this video:
http://globalnews.ca/video/946411/c-train-collisions-cause-concern-for-police-and-transit

Mon, Nov 4 2013 : After three C-train collisions in four days Calgary Police and Calgary Transit are pleading for drivers to pay attention. In all three cases distracted driving is believed to be a cause.

"All the collisions are attributed to drivers running Red lights and actually getting hit by the train"

...
"...any disruption like this disrupts the entire system"
...
"Sudden stops on packed train can cause injuries, ... and drivers are traumatized"

That's 3 collisions, on the over 4 days in 2013. In 2014... yet 3 more collisions on the same day:
http://globalnews.ca/video/1685235/c-trains-hit-pedestrian-platform-and-truck

Fri, Nov 21 2014: A young man was rushed to hospital on Thursday in one of three incidents involving a C-Train. Jenna Freeman reports.

"A train derailed and wound up on the platform... nobody was injured but it did delay things for several hours"

... Yeah, this the kind of thing Surrey wants. There's likely plenty more accidents, but Global's site doesn't like to show archives.

Calgary Sun has some too:
http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/1315117702001

DECEMBER 7, 2011
Driver haunted by C-Train accident

http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/feature...5001/cyclist-killed-by-lrt/1151711002001

Cyclist killed by LRT

A cyclist was killed in an early morning crash with an LRT train.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2011

http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/search/c%20train/child-killed-in-lrt-accident/97918620001

Child killed in LRT accident

A small child was pronounced dead at the scene after being hit by a C-Train in downtown Calgary
JUNE 22, 2010

So we have:
Collisions with Vehicles
Collisions with the Platform
Collisions with bike riders
Collisions with pedestrians
Collisions with children

When you search for C-train you see nothing but accident reports.

Now search for the Skytrain... Mostly reports of petty crime.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by bardak

My biggest issue with Surreys justification for LRT is that they list all the benefits that the skytrain has brought to the areas around it. Then they just assume that it will apply for LRT because it is "rapid transit" like the skytrain is. But they won't assume that BRT would give you same benefits even though it is "rapid transit".

This is the biggest misunderstanding that most people have with the transit debate. It really has nothing to do with the technology (Skytrain, LRT, or BRT) and everything to do with the right of way. All technologies that operate in mixed traffic are going to give similar results. All technologies that operate at-grade in dedicated rights of way will produce better results, but whether it's BRT or LRT really doesn't make much significant difference. And all technologies that operate in a grade-separated right of way will give the best results.

Almost all of the "problem" that people cite with buses are due to them running in mixed traffic. If they had their own dedicated lanes then the transit experience with BRT is very much like LRT.

And the lion's share of the capital costs are associated with what kind of right of way you build, not what kind vehicle technology you use.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I've been trying to think of a scenario that actually justifies Light Rail, and pretty much nowhere in North America (car-centric) has ever made sense for Light Rail except when there was already extensive existing heavy rail to reuse.

Everywhere else had the option of building new grade-separated rail (regardless if Unattended or not) and opted for "cheaper" light rail to lower capital costs. It's not considerably more expensive to grade separate all the crossings at time of construction, it IS substantially more expensive to install safety equipment, and many light rail systems operate with little or none, including the C-train.

Listen to this video:
http://globalnews.ca/video/946411/c-train-collisions-cause-concern-for-police-and-transit


That's 3 collisions, on the over 4 days in 2013. In 2014... yet 3 more collisions on the same day:
http://globalnews.ca/video/1685235/c-trains-hit-pedestrian-platform-and-truck


... Yeah, this the kind of thing Surrey wants. There's likely plenty more accidents, but Global's site doesn't like to show archives.

Calgary Sun has some too:
http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/1315117702001


http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/feature...5001/cyclist-killed-by-lrt/1151711002001


http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/search/c%20train/child-killed-in-lrt-accident/97918620001


So we have:
Collisions with Vehicles
Collisions with the Platform
Collisions with bike riders
Collisions with pedestrians
Collisions with children

When you search for C-train you see nothing but accident reports.

Now search for the Skytrain... Mostly reports of petty crime.

I agree. I've tried to see it from the other side, but there literally are no situations from a transportation perspective where light rail is useful. Even if a corridor is relatively heavily travelled, like the 55,000 taking the 99 B-Line, buses can handle it. It's obviously not ideal, but it's possible, even without proper BRT with big stations and median lanes. But at this level of ridership, a metro is already warranted. There is no middle ground here that buses can't handle but don't warrant metro.

While I won't argue that it is more pleasant to ride on trains than in a bus (although I think the degree to which it is is exaggerated,) that doesn't mean LRT is useful. An advantage often cited over buses—the sense of permanence due to rails—is actually a weakness. Once buses reach capacity, it is easy to build a metro along the corridor to improve service and speed. However, with LRT built, it is very doubtful that it will ever be replaced with a metro, because of how much money already went into building the LRT.

I mean the idea of having a mode in between bus and metro sounds nice, but it assumes that a corridor would remain static, which it does not. For example, at one time, LRT probably would've been just fine for Yonge Street. But now it would be nowhere near enough to deal with the current loads. So looking at the long-term, LRT is just a bad move. I know lots of people hate buses, but they do their jobs.

So like I've said before, the only reason LRT seems to be built is because it's cheaper, even if marginally, and it creates the illusion of progress. It shapes growth. But the actual purpose of rapid transit, to move people around fast, it fails at. It's become a fad, with cities all over North America building it just because a bunch of other ones have it now. Which leads to the argument of "nobody builds Skytrain anymore!" Which assumes that the argument is one of technologies, and not of the level of grade-separation, which is the real reason for cost differences, as well as service quality. We've been so fortunate to avoid LRT as it's plagued the rest of the continent. Why are we trying to fix what isn't broken?

Damn, I hate light rail.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by jhausner

My wife tried to meet me at Guildford yesterday by taking the 96-B. She waiting 10 minutes at Surrey Central then proceeded to walk to 104th then up 104th. She finally got to Whalley Boulevard and still no 96-B went by. She waited another 10 minutes at the top at WB and caught a different bus to Guildford. No 96-B.

This was peak hour. So basically 30 minutes no bus.

That is exactly why I loath BRT without dedicated lanes and right-of-way. It is unpredictable and frustrating as all hell. LRT if given dedication and row would be better but nothing beats the predictable SkyTrain.

People have bitched recently over the 3 or 4 service outages during bad times, but how many real service outages have we had in 25 years?

Nothing given how many trains go back and fourth every day. I still think SkyTrain is well worth the investment as a backbone transportation system. LRT/BRT should be reserved for lighter less-important runs.

I guess you're not aware of the 88 Ave construction that has plagued 96 riders and drivers for months now, delaying buses down the line. The Now's Christopher Poon did a report on this lately, citing he was stuck for 2 hours and that closures are happening during rush hour to "try and get this done faster". Next year 96 buses will be as great as they were before these issues - but if anything this is a preview of what Surrey riders will face during LRT construction, which will cripple 96 service throughout.

LRT has far more issues to face. There are more than 2000 accidents each year along the proposed LRT corridors. (Verify it yourself, check out the accident maps on ICBC's website)

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. I've tried to see it from the other side, but there literally are no situations from a transportation perspective where light rail is useful. Even if a corridor is relatively heavily travelled, like the 55,000 taking the 99 B-Line, buses can handle it. It's obviously not ideal, but it's possible, even without proper BRT with big stations and median lanes. But at this level of ridership, a metro is already warranted. There is no middle ground here that buses can't handle but don't warrant metro.

While I won't argue that it is more pleasant to ride on trains than in a bus (although I think the degree to which it is is exaggerated,) that doesn't mean LRT is useful. An advantage often cited over buses—the sense of permanence due to rails—is actually a weakness. Once buses reach capacity, it is easy to build a metro along the corridor to improve service and speed. However, with LRT built, it is very doubtful that it will ever be replaced with a metro, because of how much money already went into building the LRT.

I mean the idea of having a mode in between bus and metro sounds nice, but it assumes that a corridor would remain static, which it does not. For example, at one time, LRT probably would've been just fine for Yonge Street. But now it would be nowhere near enough to deal with the current loads. So looking at the long-term, LRT is just a bad move. I know lots of people hate buses, but they do their jobs.

So like I've said before, the only reason LRT seems to be built is because it's cheaper, even if marginally, and it creates the illusion of progress. It shapes growth. But the actual purpose of rapid transit, to move people around fast, it fails at. It's become a fad, with cities all over North America building it just because a bunch of other ones have it now. Which leads to the argument of "nobody builds Skytrain anymore!" Which assumes that the argument is one of technologies, and not of the level of grade-separation, which is the real reason for cost differences, as well as service quality. We've been so fortunate to avoid LRT as it's plagued the rest of the continent. Why are we trying to fix what isn't broken?

Damn, I hate light rail.

Large agree.

If Surrey builds LRT to Langley as well in Phase 3, I think I'm going to write off ever travelling south of the Fraser lol. As long as they introduce that Waterfront passenger ferry to Victoria...

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The 96 B Line is a joke. No bus only lanes, no traffic priority signals, and no queue jumpers on 104th. It cannot function as a high frequency service unless Surrey decides to invest in the roads. No matter how you slice it. 104th could become a major choke point for any BRT service during rushhour.....or it could cause carmageddon if LRT is built.

I just take the #337 to Guildford during rushhour. I learned after regularly waiting 30-45 min for a B-Line in Nov.

Very true. I forgot to mention in my "story" that my wife is almost 38 weeks pregnant so the long walk and bus fun resulted in a not-so-happy wife in the mall after. :| Thus I was equally annoyed with the 96-B line lol.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

My problem with this line of thinking is what happens when these lighter less-important runs become major corridors and LRT is unable to satisfy the demand? There is no way any politician would support building a metro where LRT already exists.

I can't really disagree with you. I guess I'm taking a pragmatic viewpoint that people are cheap and unwilling to spend for the future.

That's why collectively Canadians are $1 trillion in debt not including mortgages. We don't give a crap about the future just the now, and spending extra money today to do either a correct SkyTrain system in Surrey or maybe a subway system would get a resounding _no_ from nearly everyone.

This is largely why at the root of all things "evil" I always blame the Province for not having the balls to govern and say "you elected us, we're building X." Stop asking for permission, government is a term to mean a group that "governs." and our Provincial government seems to have forgotten that even though its in their name.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I guess you're not aware of the 88 Ave construction that has plagued 96 riders and drivers for months now, delaying buses down the line. The Now's Christopher Poon did a report on this lately, citing he was stuck for 2 hours and that closures are happening during rush hour to "try and get this done faster". Next year 96 buses will be as great as they were before these issues - but if anything this is a preview of what Surrey riders will face during LRT construction, which will cripple 96 service throughout.

LRT has far more issues to face. There are more than 2000 accidents each year along the proposed LRT corridors. (Verify it yourself, check out the accident maps on ICBC's website)

I am aware, I was just surprised it caused that much of a delay. I had actually driven King George that day to get to Guildford heading Northbound and wasn't delayed at all in my car. So it was a bit surprising that that many buses were held up such that there was a 45 minute delay between buses.

I have seen though even in non-peak non-construction non-traffic, 96-B line buses only about 1-2 minutes behind each other. That either means 1 left early or the other left late.

I guess that's the benefit of having ROW and being grade separated, a schedule can be kept.

Absolutely agree with you though on a preview for LRT construction. *sigh* not looking forward to that.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I am aware, I was just surprised it caused that much of a delay. I had actually driven King George that day to get to Guildford heading Northbound and wasn't delayed at all in my car. So it was a bit surprising that that many buses were held up such that there was a 45 minute delay between buses.

I have seen though even in non-peak non-construction non-traffic, 96-B line buses only about 1-2 minutes behind each other. That either means 1 left early or the other left late.

I guess that's the benefit of having ROW and being grade separated, a schedule can be kept.

Absolutely agree with you though on a preview for LRT construction. *sigh* not looking forward to that.

Buses leave late or are cancelled all the time in Surrey. I get email alerts on the 319, and I typically get anywhere from 5 to 15 emails a day regarding cancelled/extremely late buses on just that route. My alerts on the 99-B line result in around 1 email a week. I just think that if a bus driver is sick North of the Fraser and one is sick south of the Fraser, CMBC uses their replacement driver on the North of Fraser bus. They already get all the new buses there and we get the 10 year old hand-me-downs.

Then what makes things worse, is if there is a missing bus, that there is a 20 minute gap in service, so all the stops get busy, so the first bus to go through has to stop at every stop for much longer than normal. Then the bus behind it goes past mostly empty stops as it catches up to the bus infront of it, until it doesn't have to stop at all and just gets right behind the now 10 minute late bus. Thus a 30 to 40 minute gap and buses stacked up. It can have zero to do with actual traffic at times (this happens a lot on the 319).

The same would happen with LRT. If drivers are late to work or sick, the trains will still be late or missing, then the next train would be busier and slower. It happened to me in Calgary, there was a huge gap between trains and the first train was packed, and some of the trains aren't as easy to get off as MKII skytrain cars are, so the train dwells a long time at each station.

And the construction at 88 ave has been sporadic. You could go through the intersection fine, then come back 20 minutes later and 3 out of 4 lanes would be closed (with no restrictions on left turns) at the peak of rush hour. It was probably the worst managed road construction project in recent memory.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. I've tried to see it from the other side, but there literally are no situations from a transportation perspective where light rail is useful. Even if a corridor is relatively heavily travelled, like the 55,000 taking the 99 B-Line, buses can handle it. It's obviously not ideal, but it's possible, even without proper BRT with big stations and median lanes. But at this level of ridership, a metro is already warranted. There is no middle ground here that buses can't handle but don't warrant metro.

While I won't argue that it is more pleasant to ride on trains than in a bus (although I think the degree to which it is is exaggerated,) that doesn't mean LRT is useful. An advantage often cited over buses—the sense of permanence due to rails—is actually a weakness. Once buses reach capacity, it is easy to build a metro along the corridor to improve service and speed. However, with LRT built, it is very doubtful that it will ever be replaced with a metro, because of how much money already went into building the LRT.

I mean the idea of having a mode in between bus and metro sounds nice, but it assumes that a corridor would remain static, which it does not. For example, at one time, LRT probably would've been just fine for Yonge Street. But now it would be nowhere near enough to deal with the current loads. So looking at the long-term, LRT is just a bad move. I know lots of people hate buses, but they do their jobs.

So like I've said before, the only reason LRT seems to be built is because it's cheaper, even if marginally, and it creates the illusion of progress. It shapes growth. But the actual purpose of rapid transit, to move people around fast, it fails at. It's become a fad, with cities all over North America building it just because a bunch of other ones have it now. Which leads to the argument of "nobody builds Skytrain anymore!" Which assumes that the argument is one of technologies, and not of the level of grade-separation, which is the real reason for cost differences, as well as service quality. We've been so fortunate to avoid LRT as it's plagued the rest of the continent. Why are we trying to fix what isn't broken?

Damn, I hate light rail.

I think there are times when LRT is useful. On long routes.

The train starts at the terminus fairly empty, and as it travels its long journey it becomes full.

The advantage is actually the opposite of what Surrey advocates say. You can have less frequency and offer more capacity. For example, if you are doing the same route with buses, and you need 1 bus ever 5 minutes to manage the volume of people, that is a lot of drivers on a long route. You can replace all that labor cost by having 1 train every 15 minutes, and carry more people.

I don't think there is the volume of people travelling from Newton to Surrey to justify a train as frequent as the current B line service. Meaning to be fiscally responsible, there will be full, infrequent trains. Meaning almost everyone is going to have a longer layover than they do now. So even if the train makes the trip faster than a bus could, the layovers will eat up that speed advantage, and then some. And if you make people from South Surrey transfer off the 321 (half the people currently travelling between Newton and City Center must be on the 321) onto a train, then transfer again to Skytrain... how much time are those people going to lose everyday compared to leaving it as it is?

The only way light rail would make any sense is if it replaced the entire 321 route from White Rock. That would reduce the number of drivers needed in the system overall, and reduce most of the travelers travel times (by eliminating a long transfer).

Light Rail between Newton, Guildford and Central city is just an expensive people mover.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think there are times when LRT is useful. On long routes.

The train starts at the terminus fairly empty, and as it travels its long journey it becomes full.

The advantage is actually the opposite of what Surrey advocates say. You can have less frequency and offer more capacity. For example, if you are doing the same route with buses, and you need 1 bus ever 5 minutes to manage the volume of people, that is a lot of drivers on a long route. You can replace all that labor cost by having 1 train every 15 minutes, and carry more people.

I don't think there is the volume of people travelling from Newton to Surrey to justify a train as frequent as the current B line service. Meaning to be fiscally responsible, there will be full, infrequent trains. Meaning almost everyone is going to have a longer layover than they do now. So even if the train makes the trip faster than a bus could, the layovers will eat up that speed advantage, and then some. And if you make people from South Surrey transfer off the 321 (half the people currently travelling between Newton and City Center must be on the 321) onto a train, then transfer again to Skytrain... how much time are those people going to lose everyday compared to leaving it as it is?

The only way light rail would make any sense is if it replaced the entire 321 route from White Rock. That would reduce the number of drivers needed in the system overall, and reduce most of the travelers travel times (by eliminating a long transfer).

Light Rail between Newton, Guildford and Central city is just an expensive people mover.

All very good points. I also have experience with Calgary's LRT and one could argue that it has contributed to the massive urban sprawl that the city has experienced. The outlying C-Train stations all have massive park-and-ride lots that get full, not only with calgaryians, but also with people who live in all the bedroom communities surrounding Calgary. All these non-Calgary people don't pay property taxes that contribute to construction of these lines; they also clog the system for the inner city communities.

LRT is not the right solution for Surrey. Build a real BRT route. Regardless, I'll still be voting in favour of the referendum. Else, all improvements will be stalled another 5-10 years.

[logicbomb]

I was in Surrey yesterday. Was in Guildford in the early afternoon and needed to get to 96th and KG for a meeting.

Pretty much decided to take the 96. Arrived at the stop @ Guildford Exchange at 4:40pm. 4:42 bus didn't come, I continued waiting. 320 finally comes but it was packed. 501 also comes but also got packed at Guildford, so I was all out of luck. I still continue to wait. I contemplated taking the 337 but opted not to because there were 3 buses that were NIS. Surely one was about to leave right? 5:14 bus doesn't come. 5:22 bus isn't anywhere to be found.

So I finally take the next 337 @ 5:31 and decide to go to Surrey Central to catch the 321. Guess what? There is a huge line for both the 321 and 96.

At this point, I was already late for the meeting and I just decided to go back to Burnaby.

What the hell.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think there are times when LRT is useful. On long routes.

The train starts at the terminus fairly empty, and as it travels its long journey it becomes full.

The advantage is actually the opposite of what Surrey advocates say. You can have less frequency and offer more capacity. For example, if you are doing the same route with buses, and you need 1 bus ever 5 minutes to manage the volume of people, that is a lot of drivers on a long route. You can replace all that labor cost by having 1 train every 15 minutes, and carry more people.

I don't think there is the volume of people travelling from Newton to Surrey to justify a train as frequent as the current B line service. Meaning to be fiscally responsible, there will be full, infrequent trains. Meaning almost everyone is going to have a longer layover than they do now. So even if the train makes the trip faster than a bus could, the layovers will eat up that speed advantage, and then some. And if you make people from South Surrey transfer off the 321 (half the people currently travelling between Newton and City Center must be on the 321) onto a train, then transfer again to Skytrain... how much time are those people going to lose everyday compared to leaving it as it is?

The only way light rail would make any sense is if it replaced the entire 321 route from White Rock. That would reduce the number of drivers needed in the system overall, and reduce most of the travelers travel times (by eliminating a long transfer).

Light Rail between Newton, Guildford and Central city is just an expensive people mover.

Are you saying it's better to spend a lot of money on LRT so that capacity can stay similar while frequency decreases? Because as we've seen with the documents people have posted, LRT never recovers cost so it doesn't help Translink save money. But you're also decreasing service for the consumer. And as a transit customer I'd much rather take a bus that comes every 7 minutes than a train that comes every 15.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Are you saying it's better to spend a lot of money on LRT so that capacity can stay similar while frequency decreases? Because as we've seen with the documents people have posted, LRT never recovers cost so it doesn't help Translink save money. But you're also decreasing service for the consumer. And as a transit customer I'd much rather take a bus that comes every 7 minutes than a train that comes every 15.

As I said somewhere else on the forum. I can not find a good business case for light rail. There have to be a series of fabrications in order to make a good business case:

1) Length: The Skytrain can be any length, limited by the guideway cost. ANY Rail option has this problem. This is the most cherry-picked detail when comparing Light Rail options to actual Metro's. So what if light rail costs less to build, it never recovers the capital cost because you spend all your budget on maintenance, repairs, training, liability and PR trying to get people to use it safely. A BRT largely uses the existing rules of the road, and it's length is only dictated by available roadway... that already exists.

2) Cost to operate: UTO (Unattended Train Operation), DTO (Driverless train operation) has no operator/driver cost. Having a driver on board requires that the driver be trained in how to drive the train, along with how to deal with an emergency on board, and CPR, and such. So you're not going to hire a 19 year old right out of high school to drive a train and pay them 10.25$/hr.

From: http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...%20and%20capital%20budget%20summary.ashx


Notice the Canada line costs 4X as much to operate as the entire Expo/Millenium line. Now look at the WCE below it.
Operations of WCE is just short of half of the entire Millenium/Expo line.

So if you follow the the logic, had the Canada Line been an extension of the existing Skytrain network and NOT a P3 project, it would cost much less to operate. OOPS?!? Maybe because cost recovery is built into the Operations cost and it's new?

So if you add another P3 Light Rail that doesn't integrate with the Skytrain network, that's another Super-expensive project that doesn't recover it's costs.

Also see this note on page 37:

Risks and Challenges
• Insurance providers are looking for increases in premiums to cover catastrophic events. There is a possibility
that costs will rise in 2012 when the rates are set in April.

It's a complete fabrication that having drivers on board will improve safety, rather it's an added liability, as the driver is most likely to be killed or traumatized from collisions with people/cars.


3) Technology - It costs less to extend what we have, because it uses the existing OMC and administrative staff. The LIM motors/steerable axles favor steeper grades and can turn sharper. Neither of these are really necessary for Surrey if it's grade-separated, but there are some grades:
http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/Surrey (Look at the topography map) Light Rail is max 6% grade for 2 miles.

Often the same argument against the Skytrain technology is the same argument used against Light rail versus BRT "Higher Operations and Maintenance, cheaper capital costs"

The BRT still wins out, because the BRT can drive around accidents, where as the Grade-separated and dedicated-ROW metro rail systems don't get into accidents to begin with.

4) Urban Design - Another "win" that Light Rail advocates champion. No ugly guideways, just walk on easy to reach platforms, total win for Wheelchairs! Yeah, total fabrication. LRT vehicles do not kneel. If you are on a LRV when it gets T-boned at an intersection, and you are on a wheel chair, you're going to be the last off the LRV. If you're also going to be the last off the LRV at any stop.

Unlike a metro, be it Skytrain, Subway, that has level boarding, light rail vehicles require platforms to be at the height of the LRV, and requires ramps or elevators for wheelchairs.

Sure it might be cheaper to build LRT stations, but they're no design or safety wins. More accidents occur at Light Rail stops from people darting across the rails because the sidewalk crossing is too far away.

A Bus stop on the other hand, no different than business as usual.

Urban design is a really weak excuse, often paying lip service to cutting costs by making it so no elevators or escalators are built.

==


Like when it comes down to it, places in Europe that built Light Rail, built what they did because they had no other choice. You can't just run around demolishing historical buildings, or tunneling under them to build grade separated rail, so the only remaining option is to build narrow light rail vehicles to fit down people-sized roads. They then connected these Light Rail systems with High Speed heavy rail. That is something we do NOT have in North America, anywhere.

Light rail projects in North America have been money pits, built because the federal government put money aside to build and operate them, so Capitalism Ho, let's build as much as possible as cheap as possible.

This isn't what's happening in Surrey at all. Nobody wants to operate an expensive white elephant, the business cases are terrible, especially since it would be cheaper to extend what we have. Surrey is fudging their need for light rail by saying it will drive development. Yeah so what, Skytrain would drive development as well, but because they get more stops out of LRT, LRT looks better. That is a horrible excuse.

Like even if the referendum passes, the Province will have to say no, because that's what they've been hinting at so far.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

As I said somewhere else on the forum. I can not find a good business case for light rail. There have to be a series of fabrications in order to make a good business case:

1) Length: The Skytrain can be any length, limited by the guideway cost. ANY Rail option has this problem. This is the most cherry-picked detail when comparing Light Rail options to actual Metro's. So what if light rail costs less to build, it never recovers the capital cost because you spend all your budget on maintenance, repairs, training, liability and PR trying to get people to use it safely. A BRT largely uses the existing rules of the road, and it's length is only dictated by available roadway... that already exists.

2) Cost to operate: UTO (Unattended Train Operation), DTO (Driverless train operation) has no operator/driver cost. Having a driver on board requires that the driver be trained in how to drive the train, along with how to deal with an emergency on board, and CPR, and such. So you're not going to hire a 19 year old right out of high school to drive a train and pay them 10.25$/hr.

From: http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...%20and%20capital%20budget%20summary.ashx


Notice the Canada line costs 4X as much to operate as the entire Expo/Millenium line. Now look at the WCE below it.
Operations of WCE is just short of half of the entire Millenium/Expo line.

So if you follow the the logic, had the Canada Line been an extension of the existing Skytrain network and NOT a P3 project, it would cost much less to operate. OOPS?!? Maybe because cost recovery is built into the Operations cost and it's new?

So if you add another P3 Light Rail that doesn't integrate with the Skytrain network, that's another Super-expensive project that doesn't recover it's costs.

Also see this note on page 37:


It's a complete fabrication that having drivers on board will improve safety, rather it's an added liability, as the driver is most likely to be killed or traumatized from collisions with people/cars.


3) Technology - It costs less to extend what we have, because it uses the existing OMC and administrative staff. The LIM motors/steerable axles favor steeper grades and can turn sharper. Neither of these are really necessary for Surrey if it's grade-separated, but there are some grades:
http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/Surrey (Look at the topography map) Light Rail is max 6% grade for 2 miles.

Often the same argument against the Skytrain technology is the same argument used against Light rail versus BRT "Higher Operations and Maintenance, cheaper capital costs"

The BRT still wins out, because the BRT can drive around accidents, where as the Grade-separated and dedicated-ROW metro rail systems don't get into accidents to begin with.

4) Urban Design - Another "win" that Light Rail advocates champion. No ugly guideways, just walk on easy to reach platforms, total win for Wheelchairs! Yeah, total fabrication. LRT vehicles do not kneel. If you are on a LRV when it gets T-boned at an intersection, and you are on a wheel chair, you're going to be the last off the LRV. If you're also going to be the last off the LRV at any stop.

Unlike a metro, be it Skytrain, Subway, that has level boarding, light rail vehicles require platforms to be at the height of the LRV, and requires ramps or elevators for wheelchairs.

Sure it might be cheaper to build LRT stations, but they're no design or safety wins. More accidents occur at Light Rail stops from people darting across the rails because the sidewalk crossing is too far away.

A Bus stop on the other hand, no different than business as usual.

Urban design is a really weak excuse, often paying lip service to cutting costs by making it so no elevators or escalators are built.

==


Like when it comes down to it, places in Europe that built Light Rail, built what they did because they had no other choice. You can't just run around demolishing historical buildings, or tunneling under them to build grade separated rail, so the only remaining option is to build narrow light rail vehicles to fit down people-sized roads. They then connected these Light Rail systems with High Speed heavy rail. That is something we do NOT have in North America, anywhere.

Light rail projects in North America have been money pits, built because the federal government put money aside to build and operate them, so Capitalism Ho, let's build as much as possible as cheap as possible.

This isn't what's happening in Surrey at all. Nobody wants to operate an expensive white elephant, the business cases are terrible, especially since it would be cheaper to extend what we have. Surrey is fudging their need for light rail by saying it will drive development. Yeah so what, Skytrain would drive development as well, but because they get more stops out of LRT, LRT looks better. That is a horrible excuse.

Like even if the referendum passes, the Province will have to say no, because that's what they've been hinting at so far.

Great post. Your last sentence gave me a faint glimmer of hope.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Great post. Your last sentence gave me a faint glimmer of hope.

Yeah, the impression given is that 7b+ in capital projects over 10 years is just not going to happen. Even if the referendum is approved... well just get Todd Stone quotes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...ike-could-be-affordable/article22000302/

B.C. Transportation Minister says sales tax hike could be ‘affordable’
FRANCES BULA AND JUSTINE HUNTER
VANCOUVER and VICTORIA — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Dec. 08 2014, 10:15 PM EST

“If the mayors were to ask for a 2-per-cent increase to the provincial sales tax in the region, that could be deemed to be unaffordable,” Mr. Stone said in Victoria.

“A much lesser increase, say, 0.5 per cent, could be deemed to be affordable.”

Sources close to the negotiations say mayors are favouring exactly that half-per-cent regional sales tax to support their 10-year, $7.5-billion plan.

==
Mr. Stone’s comments this week were more positive than those he made last week, when he said the province would only support a referendum that asked people for an affordable solution and indicating that he thought asking for close to $300-million a year was unaffordable. Those comments rocked transit supporters and mayors, making some believe the province was about to scupper the referendum – something that Premier Christy Clark has insisted on – at the last minute.