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

[Metro-One]

Yeah, Langley luckily understands that a slower / less frequent surface LRT and needles transfer at King George is not conductive for its transit needs / desired connection to the rapid transit network. I wish this was being built first before Surrey's L line (I always worry some new provincial government will try and go a populist route in the future and choose the wrong technology for the route). Currently though, given all the recent overpasses built over the railroad Langley is not shy when it comes to elevated structures and grade separations. Thats a good sign for skytrain.

Regarding elevated structures in general, i do understand that many don't generally like them (and people like myself who enjoy the layered urban form are in the minority) the benefit of grade separated rail transit far out way the "negatives" of such guideways. Also, recent projects such as the Canada Line and now the Evergreen Line show that you can incorporate such structures well into the urban fabric.

Ironically, i have witnessed many times that while people seem to be against having such structures in their own back yard, many (including those with little to no interest in infrastructure) will comment on and look at such layered structures with awe when visiting other urban areas. Even seen my own wife do this when driving through major staked freeway interchanges.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

So Vancouver has 5 times as many Skytrain stations as Surrey does and has more frequent bus service (in a nice grid pattern so you can get anywhere in the city, unlike Surrey) and you wonder why Surrey doesn't have better transit ridership than Vancouver?

The "nice grid pattern" is because Vancouver has an actual grid .

Seriously though, Vancouver happens to be the heart of... um... Metro Vancouver and is home to its densest neighbourhoods and CBD.

Given a choice between downtown (many people in a small area in the middle of the city) and a suburb (few people in a large area in the corner of the city), any transport organization on the planet with basic common sense is going to prioritize downtown. It doesn't help that Surrey took a hands-off approach to urban planning over the previous decades, and consequentially is now a car-oriented transit nightmare.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The "nice grid pattern" is because Vancouver has an actual grid .

Seriously though, Vancouver happens to be the heart of... um... Metro Vancouver and is home to its densest neighbourhoods and CBD.

Given a choice between downtown (many people in a small area in the middle of the city) and a suburb (few people in a large area in the corner of the city), any transport organization on the planet with basic common sense is going to prioritize downtown. It doesn't help that Surrey took a hands-off approach to urban planning over the previous decades, and consequentially is now a car-oriented transit nightmare.

If you look at a map you'll find that Surrey has a basic grid plan in it's populated areas - maybe it's not as fine grained as Vancouver's but it's there. Then look at TransLink's bus map of Surrey and you'll see it's primarily north - south routes. I've sent in a suggested future map with some basic east - west routes that would make transit far more useful in Surrey.

Vancouver has it's downtown not "in the middle of the city" but rather on a slice of land sticking out into Burrard Inlet at the north edge of the city. It's also home to large swathes of SFHs. Those SFH neighbourhoods are well served by regularly spaced bus routes. Now look at the rest of the region and see that it doesn't get anywhere the near same service.

Please don't try to play the snowflake defense and / or claim that Vancouver is more worthy than the rest of the region.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Apparently I need to repeat that I love Skytrain and am not a fan of LRT the way Surrey has it planned. Yes the extension down Fraser Hwy is a regional backbone connection and needs to be Skytrain.

But lets take a look at something - the Skytrain system has 47 station (according to the Google search I just did). There are 9 stations on the Expo Line, 4 on the Millennium Line and (not double counting Waterfront) 8 on the Canada Line. That adds up to 21 stations in Vancouver. That's almost half of the overall number of stations, all in 1 city.

Burnaby does quite well with 11 stations on 2 lines. New West has 5 stations on 1 line. Richmond and Surrey both have 4 stations on 1 line (the airport spur isn't technically Richmond - but hey if you want you can add another 3 stations to the Richmond count).

So Vancouver has 5 times as many Skytrain stations as Surrey does and has more frequent bus service (in a nice grid pattern so you can get anywhere in the city, unlike Surrey) and you wonder why Surrey doesn't have better transit ridership than Vancouver?

I don't wonder at all why Surrey does not have better transit ridership than Vancouver, it is pretty clear. Built form, good major arterials for cars but an incomplete grid for transit, fewer significant destinations, spread out, lower density. Many of these things are outside of Translinks control but are in Surrey's control. It is only in the last couple of years that Surrey has made any progress correcting what is in its powers and even now its planning practices are behind most of its peers. If you are going to invest in transit you want some balance between cost effectiveness and coverage. Unfortunately things are stacked against cost effective transit in Surrey so in a world of limited dollars those dollars are more likely to go where transit is more cost effective unless the coverage/equity argument is used.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, Langley luckily understands that a slower / less frequent surface LRT and needles transfer at King George is not conductive for its transit needs / desired connection to the rapid transit network. I wish this was being built first before Surrey's L line (I always worry some new provincial government will try and go a populist route in the future and choose the wrong technology for the route). Currently though, given all the recent overpasses built over the railroad Langley is not shy when it comes to elevated structures and grade separations. Thats a good sign for skytrain.

Regarding elevated structures in general, i do understand that many don't generally like them (and people like myself who enjoy the layered urban form are in the minority) the benefit of grade separated rail transit far out way the "negatives" of such guideways. Also, recent projects such as the Canada Line and now the Evergreen Line show that you can incorporate such structures well into the urban fabric.

Ironically, i have witnessed many times that while people seem to be against having such structures in their own back yard, many (including those with little to no interest in infrastructure) will comment on and look at such layered structures with awe when visiting other urban areas. Even seen my own wife do this when driving through major staked freeway interchanges.

Yeah, people do think they look cool. People love to talk about LA's freeway ramps all over the city with admiration. It looks modern. But people wanna look at it from a distance. I agree that it can be integrated well, as in Richmond, but it's still an issue for many. It is an interesting phenomenon for sure, but I think it's similar to how lots of people love the tall buildings in Manhattan but wouldn't want them in their neighbourhood.

Either way, and for the record, while I myself am not a fan of elevated guideways, I fully agree that when underground is not an option, elevated more than outweighs the negatives of surface transit. I was just answering why many municipalities aren't fans.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Sheba

If you look at a map you'll find that Surrey has a basic grid plan in it's populated areas - maybe it's not as fine grained as Vancouver's but it's there. Then look at TransLink's bus map of Surrey and you'll see it's primarily north - south routes. I've sent in a suggested future map with some basic east - west routes that would make transit far more useful in Surrey.

Vancouver has it's downtown not "in the middle of the city" but rather on a slice of land sticking out into Burrard Inlet at the north edge of the city. It's also home to large swathes of SFHs. Those SFH neighbourhoods are well served by regularly spaced bus routes. Now look at the rest of the region and see that it doesn't get anywhere the near same service.

Please don't try to play the snowflake defense and / or claim that Vancouver is more worthy than the rest of the region.

The frequent fine grained grid in Vancouver is because the ridership justifies it. The ridership justifies it because there are major destinations on those routes (UBC/Downtown/Metrotown/Broadway etc). Vancouver is not more worthy than the rest of the region, but it is lucky enough to benefit from the way the region is laid out. That means the demand of all those UBC students coming from all over the region but going by bus on streets like 41st or 49th to UBC gives Vancouver a nice fine grained frequent grid....and if you look at the bus performance it shows those routes tend to have better performance than Surrey bus routes. If you are translink and you can add an hour of bus service in Vancouver that comes close to breaking even or an hour of bus service in Surrey that won't come close which would you choose?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Sheba

If you look at a map you'll find that Surrey has a basic grid plan in it's populated areas - maybe it's not as fine grained as Vancouver's but it's there. Then look at TransLink's bus map of Surrey and you'll see it's primarily north - south routes. I've sent in a suggested future map with some basic east - west routes that would make transit far more useful in Surrey.

Vancouver has it's downtown not "in the middle of the city" but rather on a slice of land sticking out into Burrard Inlet at the north edge of the city. It's also home to large swathes of SFHs. Those SFH neighbourhoods are well served by regularly spaced bus routes. Now look at the rest of the region and see that it doesn't get anywhere the near same service.

Please don't try to play the snowflake defense and / or claim that Vancouver is more worthy than the rest of the region.

There are a number of reasons why Vancouver has vastly superior service compared to the other municipalities.

First, Vancouver is denser. Much denser. According to the 2011 Census, there are 5,249 people/sqkm in Vancouver and 1,480 people/sqkm in Surrey. So Vancouver is exactly 3.5 times as dense as Surrey. I know Surrey has densified since 2011, but so has Vancouver. And I know that Surrey has a lot of farmland within its city limits, but that farm land does affect transit demand.

Second, Vancouver is a major commuter destination. I know Surrey is too, but it's not to the same degree. Not only does Vancouver have a large amount of jobs, but they tend to be concentrated in one general area (downtown/Central Broadway) which makes transit service easier. Furthermore, and this is huge, Vancouver is a massive education destination. Langara has 10,000 students, but the big one is obviously UBC. I don't want to pull numbers out of nowhere, but if I remember correctly at least 40% of students commute. There are 60,000 students, so at least 24,000 students a day need to get there from all over. That's a lot of bus trips, and is the primary reason there are so many high-frequency east-west bus routes. They are all packed to the brim with students all the time. You can't just not have them. And the north-south routes are the same that exist in places like Richmond and Surrey. Downtown is at the north edge of the city, so bus routes follow every trunk route in this direction to take people there. A common hub-spoke configuration.

The UBC example raises my final point: anchors. Transit systems need strong anchors on their termini to drive much of their ridership. Vancouver is incredibly lucky in this regard; they have UBC on the west, and the Expo Line on the east. This provides for very easy east-west route configurations, as there is tons of demand for both the whole trip as well as for people in the middle wishing to access either one. Surrey, and Richmond, doesn't have this. I suppose Surrey has Langley Centre on one end and Scottsdale Exchange on the other, but demand for them is just nowhere close. They also don't cover the entire east and west sides as Vancouver's do, so they are not as natural.

I've grown up and live in Richmond and Ladner, so believe me, I know your pain. I know that getting from southwest Richmond to southeast Richmond takes you all the way through Richmond Centre. It sucks. And the 601 in Ladner sorely needs increased frequencies. I know most of you probably think no one lives there, but pass ups are not uncommon now, and at 30 minute frequencies. But from a transit planner's perspective, when working with a limited budget, the demand is clearly higher in Vancouver. We do need more service in the suburbs, but Vancouver is bursting at the seams. And it's not induced demand due to their better service, but simply a reality of current commuting patterns and density in Metro Vancouver.

Finally, I know it's a long ways away, but once funding starts to increase (which could happen as soon as next year with the property tax and fare increases) and the Expo Line is extended, Surrey will see more east-west routes as part of the bus integration, as the anchors will be there. But for now, it's just not feasible.

[red-paladin]

I think letting Surrey build the L line as an LRT on the street, and skytrain for the Langley extension makes sense.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I doubt that these lines will be built within the next 10 years. The next to be built is the extensions to UBC. From what it sounds, it will be built in 2 stages.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Pro...rojects/Broadway-SkyTrain-Extension.aspx
If they stay on schedule, the first stage will open in 2025. Chances are, the final stage will be done by 2030.

So, in 15 years, what will Surrey and beyond look like?

I predict that the first stage of the Broadway extension will finish and then they will extend the expo line to Langley centre as both of those cities in the metro will be complaining like crazy.

Your point is totally valid. And personally I would like to see both extensions, at one point, be constructed at the same time. Honestly I feel that the Skytrain extension down the Fraser Highway will be significantly inexpensive in comparison to the Millennium line subway down Broadway if it's all done as an elevated line.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think letting Surrey build the L line as an LRT on the street, and skytrain for the Langley extension makes sense.

Worst case scenario, let the L line get built first just so Surrey can "Take the L" (by seeing how bad it is) and force themselves to get SkyTrain for the extension.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think letting Surrey build the L line as an LRT on the street, and skytrain for the Langley extension makes sense.

Yeah, I am fine with this also. As long as the line to Langley is an extension of the Expo Line.

While it is far from perfect (and arguably a waste of money) I will enjoy seeing a different type of train technology used on the Surrey L line. Adds a little more interest to our rail network.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yeah, I am fine with this also. As long as the line to Langley is an extension of the Expo Line.

While it is far from perfect (and arguably a waste of money) I will enjoy seeing a different type of train technology used on the Surrey L line. Adds a little more interest to our rail network.

Variety of technology (unless needed) shouldn't be a huge factor into investing billions of tax dollars into a rapid transportation system; efficiency should be the number one consideration that trumps all others. The L-line is a straight up vanity project. Personally I would rather spend my time and money on a skytrain extension down the Fraser highway than spend it on a streetcar system that could more efficiently meet the needs of commuters via BRT technology.

[Metro-One]

Yep, but given the political climate that is impossible. So either continue to complain about it, misplacing all your energy, and potentially losing out completely. Or...... accept that it will happen and focus all your energy on ensuring that the Langley extension will be built as skytrain after this L line LRT is built.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yep, but given the political climate that is impossible. So either continue to complain about it, misplacing all your energy, and potentially losing out completely. Or...... accept that it will happen and focus all your energy on ensuring that the Langley extension will be built as skytrain after this L line LRT is built.

Trust me, if this L-line gets built, all of the other metro cities are going to look at any major rapid transit project south of Fraser with incredible scrutiny. And if the other metro cities have to pay for its operating costs, Translink will be incredibly reluctant to consider other projects south of Fraser. I doubt that translink will extend out to Langley anytime soon if the L-line ever got built.

There has been no real fight against the L-line from the people. No protestors, no nothing. So until some real action is taken I personally don't think that any energy has even been used (save for Daryl's site) to fight this vanity project. Saving money is not losing out completely.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I doubt that these lines will be built within the next 10 years. The next to be built is the extensions to UBC. From what it sounds, it will be built in 2 stages.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Pro...rojects/Broadway-SkyTrain-Extension.aspx
If they stay on schedule, the first stage will open in 2025. Chances are, the final stage will be done by 2030.

So, in 15 years, what will Surrey and beyond look like?

Why is the earliest start date for the M line extension 2019??

Seems to be that much of the basic planning has already been done, even having the drill rigs out taking geological samples, so how will it take over 2 years to actually start working? (financing issues aside). it is only a 6km long extension. Seems that other transit projects across the country currently at the same conceptual stage and that are much larger in scope will begin construction sooner (and open sooner) given the finances. Look at Montreal's massive 3 lined metro proposal and Calgary's considerably long Green Line LRT (they are still choosing the route!).

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Why is the earliest start date for the M line extension 2019??

Seems to be that much of the basic planning has already been done, even having the drill rigs out taking geological samples, so how will it take over 2 years to actually start working? (financing issues aside). it is only a 6km long extension. Seems that other transit projects across the country currently at the same conceptual stage and that are much larger in scope will begin construction sooner (and open sooner) given the finances. Look at Montreal's massive 3 lined metro proposal and Calgary's considerably long Green Line LRT (they are still choosing the route!).

Design takes a while, ordering a TBM takes a year.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Well at least the Province/Translink still has the power to extend the Skytrain.

I'd put money down that Fraser Highway line will be SkyTrain not street-grade.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What about the Evergreen and Langley Skytrain extensions? Wouldn't those only be used by Tri-Cities or Langley residents?

Again, a willingness to contribute to a neighbourhood on the other side of town means the difference between a city and a series of villages crammed next to each other.
Surrey needs rapid transit now. Another day it'll be Langley, or North Van, or Burnaby, or Richmond, or Vancouver again. And I'm happy to help pay for each and every one of them.

No because SkyTrain is our regional center backbone transportation network. Evergreen is going to open up Coquitlam to people in Port Moody, Burnaby, heck Surrey/New West, and Vancouver. Same deal with a Langley extension. It brings Langley into the equation for the entire Expo branch from Vancouver through to Surrey. It will pin Surrey as a regional center for the Fraser Valley so it can further develop its downtown and commercial plans, and will help open up housing for Vancouver and Burnaby by connecting Fleetwood, Clayton Heights, and Langley to the major backbone.

The L line in Surrey starts and finishes in Surrey. And is ancillary to the SkyTrain backbone thus why Fraser Highway line really needs to be SkyTrain so in the future the "L" line can be extended up 152nd to create an LRT loop.

The Surrey L line is basically a glorified bus service and the primary benefactor will be the city of Surrey itself. There may be some benefit outside for people who may, say, work in Guildford but live in New West/Burnaby, but that is far less then Surrey benefits.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

They are intentionally leaving out several tidbits

-104th Ave is expected to see lane reductions. 1 lane each direction.
-I can verify that there will be no left turns permitted on 104th Ave at all intersections between 150th and Whalley Blvd.
-100th Ave and 105th A Ave improvements have been shelved. There's a good chance that neither project will be completed in the next 4 years.

This is a complete clusterfuck waiting to happen, and Daryl is our only hope to stop this mess. Paul Lee is a delusional moron.

City just approved purchasing land for 100th Ave and 105th A extensions. Why would they purchase properties if they are shelving the projects for > 4 years? Seems silly.

Hope you're off on that line item. The others though seem fairly reasonable. That said, I'm not sure why they would no left turn on 104th yet keep left turns on King George. Seems like they could accomplish at least a few left turns say at 140th. I mean how will people westbound on 104th access the Superstore?

I'll wait until we see official planning documents on this, but if the above is all true then I'd side with your notion of it being a clusterfuck. 104th lane reduction and Xing of left turns alone requires AT LEAST 100th Ave to be widened if not Fraser Highway and 105A punched through. 108th is 2 lanes but has virtually 0 left turn lanes and we know how that works in Vancouver, major roads with no left turn lanes.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Skytrain connects cities and people within a region, whereas LRT connects two or more coffee shops within a city. It just doesn't make any economical sense to use LRT as a means to move people, when demand is from people who want to swiftly get to one place or the other that skytrain has proven to be effective at doing all along. However, Paul Lee is hellbent on creating a community of coffee shops interconnected by a low speed LRT system clogging up roads and creating traffic jams. Nice community all right...

I'd caution with putting blame on any 1 person especially someone who is a project manager and not a stakeholder or sponsor of the overall project. Ultimately the direction of LRT in Surrey is driven by Mayor and Council through the City Manager. Project Managers often will tow the line but that doesn't mean they agree with every decision being made. I've run some major projects and at times have not agreed 100% on all the decisions made or directions given by the project stakeholder and/or sponsors. I voice my opinions, they take it under advisement, then set direction and regardless of the outcome it is my job to execute. Unless I'm off my rocker I'd imagine Paul Lee is in the same situation.

So let's be cautious about casting the net of who is to blame for what or who is responsible for what.