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

[ClaytonA]

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/interactive-map-shows-metro-vancouver-commuting-patterns

Vancouver Sun article; only 6% commute from Langley through to YVR.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Shift View Post
The trains are simply too small and too uncomfortable to be riding from Downtown to Langley.

See this is the common misconception that I was talking about.

http://public.tableau.com/views/Comm...showVizHome=no

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-b...uting-patterns

Time to use the links!

For the record, if the expo line gets extended to Langley, I think that it should end at just that. But that's a personal opinion.

[Waders]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/interactive-map-shows-metro-vancouver-commuting-patterns

Vancouver Sun article; only 6% commute from Langley through to YVR.

The graph only shows the existing traffic pattern.
But once a rapid transit line is built to reach Langley, the area's traffic pattern will change. More people will move to Langley. More Langley residents will take transit to go to downtown and other area along the rapid transit route.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/interactive-map-shows-metro-vancouver-commuting-patterns

Vancouver Sun article; only 6% commute from Langley through to YVR.

The interactive link is here http://public.tableau.com/profile/cskelton#!/vizhome/CommuteFORWEB/Dashboard1

Using Vancouver as the terminus is not the only metric. So those numbers change significantly when you look at both directions.

Only Vancouver and Surrey have "principally inside the city" but for very different reasons. Langley (to Surrey,) Delta (to Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey) and Burnaby (to Vancouver) have principally commuter traffic.

New West seems the odd city out, with the majority of it's commuter traffic is not inside New West, commuting to Vancouver and Burnaby instead, with more going to Richmond than Surrey, despite Surrey being closer.

So what that tells me is that the bridges are the bottlenecks. For all intents, Vancouver, Burnaby and New West operate (commute wise) as one city.

The numbers suggest that it's too hard to commute from SoF over the Fraser.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The numbers suggest that it's too hard to commute from SoF over the Fraser.

...except by Skytrain.

It sure would be interesting to see a breakdown of commuting patterns by mode type. I strongly suspect that a higher percentage of Surrey transit commuters travel across the Fraser than Surrey driving commuters do.

[urbancanadian]

One thing to note as well is that while most residents commute within their "home" city, the #2 destination is almost universally Vancouver (if it's not #1).

For example:

Burnaby -- #1 Vancouver, #2 Burnaby
Coquitlam -- #1 Coquitlam, #2 Vancouver
Delta -- #1 Delta, #2 Vancouver
Maple Ridge -- #1 Maple Ridge, #2 Vancouver
New Westminster -- #1 Vancouver, #2 Burnaby, [#3 NW]
North Van (City) -- #1 Vancouver, #2 CNV
North Van (District) -- #1 Vancouver, #2 DNV
Pitt Meadows -- #1 Maple Ridge, #2 Vancouver [#3 PM]
Port Coquitlam -- #1 PoCo, #2 Vancouver
Port Moody -- #1 Vancouver, #2 Burnaby [#4 PoMo]
Richmond -- #1 Richmond, #2 Vancouver
Surrey -- #1 Surrey, #2 Vancouver
West Vancouver -- #1 Vancouver, #2 West Van

The only outliers are - as you'd expect - the most distant suburbs:

Langley (City) -- #1 Surrey, #2 Lang. Township, #3 Lang. City, [#6 Vancouver]
Langley (Township) -- #1 Lang. Township, #2 Surrey, #3 Lang. City, [#4 Vancouver]
White Rock - #1 Surrey, #2 White Rock, [#3 Vancouver]

Anyway, I don't mean to take away from anyone's points. Just thought I'd add that Vancouver is still an important destination for virtually every part of the region.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Waders

The graph only shows the existing traffic pattern.
But once a rapid transit line is built to reach Langley, the area's traffic pattern will change. More people will move to Langley. More Langley residents will take transit to go to downtown and other area along the rapid transit route.

Urban sprawl brought on by greedy land developers and realtors is a big reason for the commuting nightmare in Metro Van. Ideally, people should live in the city they work in. If you work in Langley, live in Langley! People are also greedy for wanting a bigger home/land so they move farther out and then contribute to the traffic gridlock.

The system should be user pay. If you choose to commute a farther distance to work, then you should be pay the full cost for it. The same goes for people who commute by car. If you make commuting to work very expensive, then people will make better choices and live in the cities they work in. They would just have to settle for whatever housing they can afford. As it stands, urban sprawl is out of control and we will keep spinning the transportation wheels by throwing more money at it, but really getting nowhere.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Urban sprawl brought on by greedy land developers and realtors is a big reason for the commuting nightmare in Metro Van. Ideally, people should live in the city they work in. If you work in Langley, live in Langley! People are also greedy for wanting a bigger home/land so they move farther out and then contribute to the traffic gridlock.

FYI: Metro Vancouver has an urban containment boundary. Each Municipality also has an Official Community Plan. Developers develop within and adhere to these plans, they do not drive sprawl.

Metro Vancouver is growing by about 30,000 people/year. Densification is happening, but with developable land left within the urban containment boundary, the suburbs will continue to absorb this growth. If large swaths of Vancouver proper weren't protected single family areas (particularly around Commercial-Broadway/Nanaimo, 29th Avenue Stations), maybe Vancouver could absorb more of this growth.

At least most of the growth in the suburbs now is actually quite urban (not traditional sprawling, low density, large lots). Most of the new development in Surrey and Langley is micro-sized small lots and townhouses. There is a compact regional growth strategy and it's being followed for the most part. Is it even sprawl in the definition of the word if it is compact development? I think not.

Also people do not move to Langley and Surrey because they are greedy. Vancouver is simply unaffordable.

[BCPhil]

Don't forget too, that while Langley might be the terminus of a Skytrain line, most of the extension is actually within Surrey, whose population does commute to Vancouver as urbancanadian points out.

And I would wager, that for residents of Guildford, Fleetwood, and Clayton, the percentage commuting to Vancouver increases (hence the demand for the Port Mann) compared to Newton or South Surrey. And the Skytrain would serve those people well.

However, another thing to keep in mind is the vast size of Surrey and the distribution of job locations. Even if Surrey built out its full LRT plan as envisioned by city council, I think the vast majority of current internal Surrey commuters wouldn't be well served by the LRT (they would still have to take a bus to LRT, transfer LRT trains, then take another bus).

Jobs are located all over Surrey, with vast industrial lands in Newton (which only the fringe edge touches King Geroge), along the Scott Road Riverfront (away from LRT) and in Walnut Grove (away from LRT), South Cloverdale (away from LRT), and South Surrey (away from LRT).

So while a large number of people in Surrey and from the Langleys commute to jobs in Surrey, it is almost impossible to cover most commutes with rapid transit.

Which is why I think Skytrain to Langley should be built. So far our strategy in building Skytrain has been to connect major (and designated to become major) town centers. For whatever reason, it has worked. Langley is one of the last town centers to not be connected. I believe if we connect Langley town center into the Skytrain network, we will see the same kind of growth and success and redistribution of homes and jobs as we've seen everywhere else we've built Skytrain.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Shift

Metro Vancouver is growing by about 30,000 people/year. Densification is happening, but with developable land left within the urban containment boundary, the suburbs will continue to absorb this growth. If large swaths of Vancouver proper weren't protected single family areas (particularly around Commercial-Broadway/Nanaimo, 29th Avenue Stations), maybe Vancouver could absorb more of this growth.

The reason that growth is shifting to the suburbs is due to the crazy house prices in Vancouver. It's a mistake to think that Vancouver can't absorb more growth because it's out of land. I live in the Killarney area where the "single family housing" used to consist mostly of post-war bungalows that could house one family at best. Year after year those old bungalows are being replaced by "houses" that are really three-unit mini apartments. The bungalow next to me was replaced a few years ago by a house that has three families living in it, and that's still going on throughout the area. And ever since laneway houses were approved I haven't seen a single new house being built that doesn't have one. In fact just down the lane from us the owners are building a laneway house behind their existing home. And a house on a large lot not far from me has been replace by three separate structures.

And none of that says anything about other densification initiatives such as what's happening along the Cambie corridor or the Fraser Lands in the southeast corner of the city.

There's still a ton of capacity in Vancouver, population growth is only limited by the price of entry here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Shift

FYI: Metro Vancouver has an urban containment boundary. Each Municipality also has an Official Community Plan. Developers develop within and adhere to these plans, they do not drive sprawl.

Metro Vancouver is growing by about 30,000 people/year. Densification is happening, but with developable land left within the urban containment boundary, the suburbs will continue to absorb this growth. If large swaths of Vancouver proper weren't protected single family areas (particularly around Commercial-Broadway/Nanaimo, 29th Avenue Stations), maybe Vancouver could absorb more of this growth.

At least most of the growth in the suburbs now is actually quite urban (not traditional sprawling, low density, large lots). Most of the new development in Surrey and Langley is micro-sized small lots and townhouses. There is a compact regional growth strategy and it's being followed for the most part. Is it even sprawl in the definition of the word if it is compact development? I think not.

Also people do not move to Langley and Surrey because they are greedy. Vancouver is simply unaffordable.

Blame politics - in this case, land speculators are only part of the problem. Every time Vision introduces a rezoning Community Plan, it's a coup for the developers and we end up with the same unaffordable foreign-market high rises. That, or the NIMBYs kick up a fuss about "character of the neighbourhood" and get said Plan reduced to virtually nothing.

Plus, if the new development is nowhere near a Skytrain station or a bus that takes less than 20 minutes to arrive, the residents will most likely end up driving. That's bad too.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Blame politics - in this case, land speculators are only part of the problem. Every time Vision introduces a rezoning Community Plan, it's a coup for the developers and we end up with the same unaffordable foreign-market high rises. That, or the NIMBYs kick up a fuss about "character of the neighbourhood" and get said Plan reduced to virtually nothing.

Plus, if the new development is nowhere near a Skytrain station or a bus that takes less than 20 minutes to arrive, the residents will most likely end up driving. That's bad too.

Hence "No density, no rail station", I want to see at least all 8-story buildings within 400 meters, and 40-50 story buildings if practical next to rail stations. If some incentive to use transit is needed, allow the development to trade off parking spaces for unit size space (eg only one parking space for every unit, with some larger units having no parking space under the assumption of transit-only/ev-pool use.)

The other problem is that some station areas don't have the necessary services, so residents are dependent on the transit to do everything, even groceries (eg 29th, Nanaimo, Gilmore stations). So some problems are a direct result of not having the density increased. If there isn't at least a grocery store and/or pharmacy (eg shoppers, london drugs) within 400 meters of the transit station, then it's not planned very well.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Waders

The graph only shows the existing traffic pattern.
But once a rapid transit line is built to reach Langley, the area's traffic pattern will change. More people will move to Langley. More Langley residents will take transit to go to downtown and other area along the rapid transit route.

Except for the fact SkyTrain was built out to Burnaby, New Westminster, and Surrey and with SkyTrain over the past 20 years less % of people commute to Downtown Vancouver.

Same would happen with Langley. SkYTrain to Langley would boost business to decentralize even further from being downtown centric to moving to areas such as MetroTown, New Westminster, and Surrey Central. That would cause jobs to not just focus around downtown but be more regional which would overall help to reduce overall commutes.

There would be more jobs South of Fraser over time so people living SoF can work in SoF more. Same with NoF because some positions would open up. Is it 100%? No. But this notion that SkyTrain would suddenly cause everyone to go downtown is just not realistic.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Except for the fact SkyTrain was built out to Burnaby, New Westminster, and Surrey and with SkyTrain over the past 20 years less % of people commute to Downtown Vancouver.

Same would happen with Langley. SkYTrain to Langley would boost business to decentralize even further from being downtown centric to moving to areas such as MetroTown, New Westminster, and Surrey Central. That would cause jobs to not just focus around downtown but be more regional which would overall help to reduce overall commutes.

There would be more jobs South of Fraser over time so people living SoF can work in SoF more. Same with NoF because some positions would open up. Is it 100%? No. But this notion that SkyTrain would suddenly cause everyone to go downtown is just not realistic.

Metro Van has the problem of containment on the N/S. It creates a tunnel of traffic flow E/W that results in traffic nightmares. Edmonton doesn't have this problem because people can commute from any direction.

There needs to be another "downtown" or several that shortens commuter times and allows people to work where they live. It takes $$$ and political will to make that happen. As we know from experience, change goes at a snail's pace in this area. The suburbs is an old and outdated concept that requires expensive transportation options.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The suburbs is an old and outdated concept that requires expensive transportation options.

And yet unless Vancouver either becomes affordable or decentralizes, the "live where you work" concept is just wishful thinking by the one percenters in City Council.

[cleowin]

Personally, I would like to see the Skytrain system eventually feed into Abbotsford and then even Chiliwack, service the entire Lower Mainland!

At major City Core's, have B-Line routes that service the N/S & E/W arterial roads. As for drivers, there will always be people who need to use their cars for driving. I would prefer a hybrid per km charge / zone system.

For example: Home city is free for all intensive purposes.
If you live in Langley, charge 5 cents per city entrance + 1 cent per Km driven (1.5 cents during rush hour, 0.5 cents from 10 PM - 4 AM, 0.5 cents per km on weekends & statutory holidays) & eliminate all tolls in the region. All urban freeways would have a flat rate of 1.5 cents per km (2 cents for rush hour, and 1 cent 10 PM - 4 AM), and the 'zone' fee would only be applied when you take ramp exits.

Case 1: Joe who lives in Downtown Langley.
Drive to Highway 1: No Cost
200 St On-ramp to Grandview Hwy (vancouver): 31.9 km from 7:30 AM - 7:55 AM: 64 Cents
Zone fee: Vancouver: 5 cents
Grandview Hwy to TD Canada Trust @ Downtown Financial District - 9.8 km @ 1.5 cents/km - 15 Cents

Drive home @ 4:30 PM
9.8 km @ 1.5 cents
31.9 km @ 2 cents
78 Cents

(No zone fee since entrance city is Langley).

Total cost per day: $1.62

$421.20 Per year for work days only.

Assuming Joe doesn't leave Langley on his days off, that would be his yearly cost.

Benefits:
Would even out traffic on major bridges from SoF to NoF
More people may choose to take a freeway over local roads as the 5 cent charge per city crossing could be expensive travelling via local roads!
Reduced congestion on major arterial roads
More people will work in local region to save money.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by cleowin

Personally, I would like to see the Skytrain system eventually feed into Abbotsford and then even Chiliwack, service the entire Lower Mainland!

At major City Core's, have B-Line routes that service the N/S & E/W arterial roads. As for drivers, there will always be people who need to use their cars for driving. I would prefer a hybrid per km charge / zone system.

For example: Home city is free for all intensive purposes.
If you live in Langley, charge 5 cents per city entrance + 1 cent per Km driven (1.5 cents during rush hour, 0.5 cents from 10 PM - 4 AM, 0.5 cents per km on weekends & statutory holidays) & eliminate all tolls in the region. All urban freeways would have a flat rate of 1.5 cents per km (2 cents for rush hour, and 1 cent 10 PM - 4 AM), and the 'zone' fee would only be applied when you take ramp exits.

Case 1: Joe who lives in Downtown Langley.
Drive to Highway 1: No Cost
200 St On-ramp to Grandview Hwy (vancouver): 31.9 km from 7:30 AM - 7:55 AM: 64 Cents
Zone fee: Vancouver: 5 cents
Grandview Hwy to TD Canada Trust @ Downtown Financial District - 9.8 km @ 1.5 cents/km - 15 Cents

Drive home @ 4:30 PM
9.8 km @ 1.5 cents
31.9 km @ 2 cents
78 Cents

(No zone fee since entrance city is Langley).

Total cost per day: $1.62

$421.20 Per year for work days only.

Assuming Joe doesn't leave Langley on his days off, that would be his yearly cost.

Benefits:
Would even out traffic on major bridges from SoF to NoF
More people may choose to take a freeway over local roads as the 5 cent charge per city crossing could be expensive travelling via local roads!
Reduced congestion on major arterial roads
More people will work in local region to save money.

Interesting concept but a nightmare to administrate. What about all those independent contractors who travel all over for work? Would they end up paying more than their fair share? I find that more and more people are starting their own businesses to scratch out a living.

By creating a better road network for people to travel west and then back east just encourages more people to move further and further up the valley. One day Chilliwack will become the new Surrey/Langley. What's next? Hope?

The reality is that road pricing in some form will eventually become the new norm. People will pay for distance traveled.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Interesting concept but a nightmare to administrate. What about all those independent contractors who travel all over for work? Would they end up paying more than their fair share? I find that more and more people are starting their own businesses to scratch out a living.

By creating a better road network for people to travel west and then back east just encourages more people to move further and further up the valley. One day Chilliwack will become the new Surrey/Langley. What's next? Hope?

The reality is that road pricing in some form will eventually become the new norm. People will pay for distance traveled.

Honestly, it's just easier to administrate things at the insurance level for road pricing.

Option A: Toll zones + Insurance registered "home" zone

Expand the LPR (License Plate Reader)'s to cover the municipal boundaries FTN. Have vehicles that are travelling outside what is defined in their insurance zone (eg "for personal use within 8km", "for business use within 30km") be charged either the "commute" rate or the "business" rate.

Option B: Time of day + LTE GPS CANBUS dongle.
This pushes the responsibility to the user and is actually less forgiving since all moving infractions would be registered. So if someone commutes during offpeak, they are charged less, or nothing. If the dongle isn't plugged in, or turned off, then the user is charged as if they drove during peak time.

Users would be billed for every KM they drove, depending on what time. Any discrepancy in mileage would be seen as the device was unplugged for that time. The GPS data is used to determine if they are in a time-of-day area, or maybe driving outside the Metro area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cleowin

Personally, I would like to see the Skytrain system eventually feed into Abbotsford and then even Chiliwack, service the entire Lower Mainland!

Not going to happen. An Expo Line entension makes sense because it connects not only Surrey and Langley, but also all the potential infill and densification between them. What's between Langley and Abbotsford or Chilliwack? ALR farmland? Makes more sense to connect them with the WCE or some other commuter rail.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Option B: Time of day + LTE GPS CANBUS dongle.

So everyone has to pay for a data plan monthly for their car? I think just paying a flat levy would be cheaper.

Also, you're not much of one for privacy or data gathering concerns are you? How long until someone loses a hard drive with all that data? They've lost them before.