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

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

I wouldn't necessarily discount the potential that the Expo Line could be extended beyond Langley Centre towards Abbotsford 30-40 years from now, if there's any chance the urban containment boundary will need to break to accommodate very high growth. It would definitely be more oriented towards commutes into Surrey City Centre, but could even service the occasional commute to downtown Vancouver (Langley to Abbotsford would be around 28km, 35-40 minutes under existing speeds so 1h 35-40m to downtown - I'd also bet by then we can raise the running speed of the Expo line to 100-110km/h, at least on any newer sections of track, along with an all-Mark III or Mark IV? fleet of trains)

I mean, it's certainly like that now, but you could've said the same thing about Fraser Highway between Surrey & Langley in the early 90s...
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Surrey/Cloverdale/1991/078/2
http://www.globalairphotos.com/large/BC/Surrey/Cloverdale/1991/076/2

Even then, extending to Langley will help maintain the current urban containment boundary by giving us densification opportunities - and when I say that I don't just mean high density relatively near the stations (skyscrapers), but also the intensification of our single-family neighbourhoods (a-la-Clayton) as it will be possible to accommodate that with higher transit usage and transit-linked job centres.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

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.

Presumably the insurance company would have a bulk data "plan" to do this.

The reason it seems unworkable is that Canadian wireless carriers are a joke and charge rip-off rates while colluding to keep rates high. Bulk data tends to have a minimum charge per device (eg $5) and then the bill is for the total data used between all devices.

They can also encrypt the data on the dongle, don't be silly. The CANBUS itself isn't encrypted and I'm sure the first thing people would discover how to do is how to edit the data on the fly before it gets to the dongle.

I'd like to know what Translink's data plan deal is for the Compass system. It's not like the infrastructure isn't already there to do this. There's also an uptick in dashcams, so the privacy concern works in the favor of the driver with data logging.

I don't really see the Province, ICBC, Translink or any of the Municipalities signing on to road pricing without ignoring the privacy concerns. Plus something that is connected wirelessly via LTE or just synced over WiFi still has the concern of the vehicle controls being hijacked if poorly secured.

[waves]

Don't we already somewhat charge per kilometer driven by adding on gas taxes? We already have a Metro Vancouver gas surcharge but it could be expanded to have an extra surcharge depending on your region inside Metro Vancouver. ie. 5 cent/L in Vancouver, 4 cents/L in Richmond, Burnaby, New West, West Van, North Van, 3 cents/L in Surrey, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Ladner, 2 cents/L in South Surrey, White Rock, Langley Haney, 1 cent per L for the rest of the Fraser Valley.

We could also charge per kilometer by requiring people to report their Odometers to ICBC quarterly. If they are within the amount of mileage that they have paid for then they get a discount of 5% for their next quarter. If they aren't, they could pay a 5% surcharge for their next quarter.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by waves

Don't we already somewhat charge per kilometer driven by adding on gas taxes? We already have a Metro Vancouver gas surcharge but it could be expanded to have an extra surcharge depending on your region inside Metro Vancouver. ie. 5 cent/L in Vancouver, 4 cents/L in Richmond, Burnaby, New West, West Van, North Van, 3 cents/L in Surrey, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Ladner, 2 cents/L in South Surrey, White Rock, Langley Haney, 1 cent per L for the rest of the Fraser Valley.

We could also charge per kilometer by requiring people to report their Odometers to ICBC quarterly. If they are within the amount of mileage that they have paid for then they get a discount of 5% for their next quarter. If they aren't, they could pay a 5% surcharge for their next quarter.

That's still an honour system.

The fuel surcharge isn't going to work for the foreseeable future because vehicles only get more efficient, go hybrid, or full plug-in electric. So it would actually make more sense to drop the fuel surcharge entirely and replace it with the road usage based tolling. Which leads to the the problem of people being dishonest without something to force them to. It also does nothing to corral people into changing their behavior.

A technical solution just makes people more aware that they are being watched. If people were really concerned about their privacy they would get rid of their wireless phones.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Kisai

A technical solution just makes people more aware that they are being watched.

I can see how tolling all Metro Vancouver bridges makes sense and works because there are no alternative routes. In the city however, I can't see how a similar license plate reader will work because people could just scoot into a back alley and get around it. If we put up license plate readers on every single city block it would be a very complicated, expensive and stupid system.

Putting GPS's in everyone's car could work, but it would be a challenge. To prevent people tampering with it/removing it from the vehicle You would need to make it the equivalent of not carrying your insurance so if you get in an accident without it being in your vehicle then your insurance won't cover you. In addition, I would be curious to know how these GPS's would transmit their data to ICBC. My guess is they would have to be set up to use data from mobile networks once a month. Then you have the question of what happens if you are out of the country for three months? Does the data use roaming charges or does it wait till you get back to Canada? Also what about out of Province or out of country vehicles? Do we require that they purchase and install the GPS unit before entering the province?

All in all, the GPS option is sounding really expensive and I feel like with the GPS units costing likely about $400 per vehicle it's going to be hard to break even let alone bring in more revenue from it. In other words I feel like it would be a waste of money and the money would be better spent just put into transit in the first place.

Maybe if we are really serious about decreasing car usage and increasing costs to drivers we should just cut our roads maintenance budget in half and stop building new 10 lanes bridges. Worse roads = more wear on vehicles, smaller bridges = more congestion = less people inclined to drive.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by waves

I can see how tolling all Metro Vancouver bridges makes sense and works because there are no alternative routes. In the city however, I can't see how a similar license plate reader will work because people could just scoot into a back alley and get around it. If we put up license plate readers on every single city block it would be a very complicated, expensive and stupid system.

Putting GPS's in everyone's car could work, but it would be a challenge.

Just to point out:
https://blog.joemanna.com/progressive-snapshot-review/
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/hacking/comments/2bjo0k/hacking_the_progressive_snapshot_obdii_device_for/

These devices already exist, and people already know how to muck with them. They are also proposed to solve drunk and distracted drivers, which likely just applies an algorithm to the steering position.

Like I see a lot of political reason how these can be proposed as safety devices and just so happen to lower your insurance and bill you for time-of-day driving costs. So people who are incredibly wasteful and drive during dangerous/congested times wind up paying substantially more for the privilege of driving a car.

But as I said in a previous message, people really don't put enough value on their privacy. It will be inevitable once automated cars become popular.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by waves

Maybe if we are really serious about decreasing car usage and increasing costs to drivers we should just cut our roads maintenance budget in half and stop building new 10 lanes bridges. Worse roads = more wear on vehicles, smaller bridges = more congestion = less people inclined to drive.

The reason the government is improving the hwy/road system is that trucks also use those roads and need to deliver their goods in a timely manner or the economy suffers. The key as mentioned, is getting cars off the roads or making them pay much more to use them. A vehicle levy has long been discussed but voted down. For now a majority of the cars are gasoline based so adding more tax to the cost of fuel would work but that also makes the cost of transportation for goods more expensive. No government wants to be remember for raising even more taxes. Maybe a tax on the cost of purchasing vehicles but that would get the automotive industry in a knot. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

[cleowin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

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.

There could also be discounts if you use a vehicle that is on the eco friendly side of things

So you could say get a 50% deduction for a hybrid, maybe 75% for an all purpose electric vehicle?

[scryer]

Back to Rapid Transit....

Has anyone ever thought about having rush hour train service, like Chicago's purple line does? I'm thinking that if the Expo line does become a real problem (if it was extended to Langley), that it might be an interesting idea to have express skytrain service that only runs during rush hours during the week.

I think that as a region we should consider these more mega-city strategies as we tend to be more public transit oriented than most other Canadian cities.

Thoughts?

[nickbeaulieu]

Originally Posted by scryer

Back to Rapid Transit....

Has anyone ever thought about having rush hour train service, like Chicago's purple line does? I'm thinking that if the Expo line does become a real problem (if it was extended to Langley), that it might be an interesting idea to have express skytrain service that only runs during rush hours during the week.

I think that as a region we should consider these more mega-city strategies as we tend to be more public transit oriented than most other Canadian cities.

Thoughts?

I was saying the same thing to my wife on friday, that we need express trains. The problem is that the express trains would overtake local trains, so there would need to be more tracks laid down, and that's not gonna happen.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by scryer

Back to Rapid Transit....

Has anyone ever thought about having rush hour train service, like Chicago's purple line does? I'm thinking that if the Expo line does become a real problem (if it was extended to Langley), that it might be an interesting idea to have express skytrain service that only runs during rush hours during the week.

I think that as a region we should consider these more mega-city strategies as we tend to be more public transit oriented than most other Canadian cities.

Thoughts?

Remember that American mega cities are not transit oriented with the exception of the core of New York.

No one builds multi-track metros anymore. They were largely a product of a brief period of time when the labor to build, maintain, and operate them was much cheaper and the local service more competitive, and as such they're only seen on a handful of systems from around the turn of the last century, legacies of historic infrastructure patterns that would not necessarily be worthwhile today. In this particular case, the four-track section of the L is a legacy of a time when those tracks were used in addition by the inter-city services of the North Shore Line.

What many transit-oriented mega cities do to enhance regional connectivity is rebuild and electrify underused legacy branch lines and try to connect them through the core by various means. They build more metro and local lines that increase access and take pressure off of over-used lines. They don't really use express-metro lines unless they happen to already have them

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

Ummm, Murrayville and Aldergrove? There is more population along the Fraser highway than the TCH through Langley. They are pretty well built up areas that function like towncenters elsewhere in the region. Even the area between Murrayville and Aldergrove is Hopington and not exactly productive farmland. It's mostly just large acreages not really used for agriculture, mostly just rich people owning horses.

But as Surrey and Langley grow in importance and their job centers grow, people working at those jobs will want to move to the area, and the area is getting more crowded by the day. Filling in the space between Langley and Abbotsford could be the next major area for growth in the region.

Extending to Abbotsford too would not just create a terminus, but also be a major destination. Abbotsford is growing fast, and has major visions for densifying its downtown and creating major job centers. Skytrain to Abbotsford would enable a reverse rush from the Langleys to Abbotsford just as much as carry travelers from Abbotsford.

Sure, it could be a long time off (or maybe not if you want to open new land that isn't valuable ALR land like we are losing in Richmond and Delta and Surrey and Langley closer to the river), but I think it should be part of the long term plan and new developments in Abbotsford and Langley should accommodate its potential ROW.

[cleowin]

Here are the stops I would construct on the Extended Skytrain line outwards to Abbotsford:

King George (Existing):
Skytrain tracks built at centre of Fraser Highway down the stretch.

Stops:
156 St (Major Connection to HOV On/off ramps at TCH, allows the 555 to pick up/drop off passengers @ 156th Skytrain Station & Services Fleetwood Residents).
168 St (Connection to Fortis BC, as well as major residential areas, would likely be more of a residential station)
176 St & Highway 15 (Provides easy access to Highway 15, could lead to development around the route, could be a major bus exchange built there)
188 St (Services Clayton Residents)
Langley Centre(Access to Langley Centre Bus Loop, brings residents close to Willowbrook Shopping Centre, etc. Would allow major redevelopment in this region)
216 St (Servies Murrayville Residents)
264 St (Services Aldergrove Residents)
272 St (Serves as the connection for BC Transit/Translink operations, could build another exchange here)
Mt Lehman Road (Services High Street Mall, would be VERY Busy)

Skytrain then would then hug the TCH, and then the terminus would be:
Bourquin Bus Exchange.

Future expansion to Chiliwack could be feasible if enough interest and demand is there.

By building this skytrain network, the 501 could be eliminated, with limited 502 service between Surrey Central & Aldergrove.

the Aldergrove/Abbotsford connector would seem redundant unless to service local stops.

The 66 Langley/Chiliwack express bus could be shortened to service Bourquin Connector, shortening the route to save on costs.

If there are any modifications to this potential skytrain, let me know!

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cleowin

Here are the stops I would construct on the Extended Skytrain line outwards to Abbotsford:

Stops:
176 St & Highway 15 (Provides easy access to Highway 15, could lead to development around the route, could be a major bus exchange built there)

This is smack in the middle of ALR and is incredibly unlikely to be developed. There is currently no bus that runs up 176th. This would literally be a station built in the middle of nowhere with practically zero chance of anything being built near it.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

This is smack in the middle of ALR and is incredibly unlikely to be developed. There is currently no bus that runs up 176th. This would literally be a station built in the middle of nowhere with practically zero chance of anything being built near it.

Yeah, that's one of the areas you would want to speed past to give travel times a competitive advantage.

But I would use that quick travel over the Serpintine valley in exchange for more stations on the rest of the line. Otherwise it's almost an average of a station every 5 km.

You need more Stations in Surrey. I would put them at 148 St, 88 Ave, 84 Ave and 168 St. That makes it a station every 1.5km. I would also be tempted to build one at 140 St, to create a cluster of stations in Downtown Surrey and keep the 1.5km average spacing from 140 to 168 Streets.

Clayton is a bit harder. But no station between 188 and Langley center is insane; that's over 3.5km of city with no stops? You need a stop at Willobrook at 196 St as the mall is already slated for major redevelopment (this also allows bus connections to Langley over the overpass). I might go 184, 188 and 192 streets before Langley Center.

For the Fantasy protion (far into the future extension to Abbotsford):

I would actually put a station at 208 St to spur redevelopment of that old part of the city.

I would skip 216 St (as serving that airport is useless unless it's going to be closed and redeveloped) and put a station at 222 St as that is more the functional center of Murrayville.

Future Station at 240 and 256.

Aldergrove is quite large, so I would put stations at 264, 272, and Lefeuvre.

In Abbotsford I would have a station at Mt Lehman, and then follow the TCH only as far as South Fraser Way and follow South Fraser Way through Abbotsford with stations at Clearbrook, Garden, Bourquin, and have the terminus in the old downtown near Railway Street.

At Railway street you could have a station for transfers to heavier rail. You could bring the WCE down to Abbotsford there (and Abbotsfordians could use Skytrain to get to the WCE) or you could run service from there out to Chilliwack along the old BCER (either extend the WCE or run smaller DMU).

The ultimate fantasy would be at the station in old downtown Abbotsford, you could connect to Skytrain towards Langley, or catch commuter/intercity rail straight to downtown or to further in the Valley (or into the BC Interior (Super-ultimate fantasy)).

Even if we never build Skytrain out to Abbotsford, Abbotsford is planning their future community plan, and they really should reserve space for at least potential light rail on S Fraser Way.

[cleowin]

For a skytrain rail that large, i feel they would have to build a second parking station for skytrains overnight. Also , i feel service at first would only run out past Langley Centre no later than 9-10 pm? Langley till maybe 11-12 ?

[AverageJoe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Even if we never build Skytrain out to Abbotsford, Abbotsford is planning their future community plan, and they really should reserve space for at least potential light rail on S Fraser Way.

I had a meeting with the City of Abbotsford engineer, planner, and a couple others a few weeks ago about a project. They are a young, forward-thinking bunch of people that made me very excited about Abbotsford in the coming decade. Their new OCP (to be ratified in July) looks very well-thought out.

They are, in fact, seriously thinking about a streetcar or light rail of some sort along McCallum Road and South Fraser Way. They recognize there are significant hurdles to it but have this in mind as they're developing the city. This makes me glad.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by AverageJoe

I had a meeting with the City of Abbotsford engineer, planner, and a couple others a few weeks ago about a project. They are a young, forward-thinking bunch of people that made me very excited about Abbotsford in the coming decade. Their new OCP (to be ratified in July) looks very well-thought out.

They are, in fact, seriously thinking about a streetcar or light rail of some sort along McCallum Road and South Fraser Way. They recognize there are significant hurdles to it but have this in mind as they're developing the city. This makes me glad.

At the very least skytrain should go to Langley downtown. Then they could make all sorts of bus routes that feed into it. This would help to connect communities better and get more people on transit. Yes, the cost of skytrain is higher at first but it moves a lot of people pretty efficiently. LRT just completes with cars and trucks and causes more traffic jams if it doesn't have its own dedicated right of way. However, I don't see that as a priority because of the rapid bus going across the PM

[Sheba]

The newspapers may be saying LRT but the official announcements only say rapid transit - not what technology it will be. "Design and planning for Rapid Transit South of Fraser and the Millennium Line Extension along Broadway."

https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/prime-minister-announces-new-infrastructure-with-british-columbia

[Shift]

Nobody wants to ride SkyTrain from downtown to Langley/Abbotsford. Downtown to Surrey is dreadfully long enough on such a small uncomfortable train. Build a proper regional rail system.