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

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by jhausner

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.

We're still in the property acquisition phase. They haven't even planned any consultations yet. Either the City is bsing about commencing construction in 2018, or they are dead set on intentionally making this City a living hell to drive in. I'm leaning towards the former.

Also worth noting that the the Surrey Environmental Partners are a small but vocal group. There is a lot of opposition about going through Hawthrone and increasing traffic within Green Timbers park.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

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.

And someone who knows what they're talking about. Absolutely spot on from a bus standpoint.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

We're still in the property acquisition phase. They haven't even planned any consultations yet. Either the City is bsing about commencing construction in 2018, or they are dead set on intentionally making this City a living hell to drive in. I'm leaning towards the former.

Also worth noting that the the Surrey Environmental Partners are a small but vocal group. There is a lot of opposition about going through Hawthrone and increasing traffic within Green Timbers park.

There's only a few properties along 100th that need to be purchased for widening and that's between 138th and 140th, 2 of which have "for sale signs" on right now and 1 of which is an empty lot so I'd be surprised if they aren't ones being purchased. The rest is Green Timbers so nothing there.

So I still see 100th as being possible in the next few years at least. And the environmental aspect is just ridiculous. The 100th stretch is largely grass with, to me at least, very little impact on anything and for the area it would be nice to have a REAL sidewalk down 100th so my wife, child, and I don't need to effectively walk on the road to use Green Timbers that way.

105th though I can see the issue. Hawthorn is a great park and not sure how they'd get the 105th through, would hate to see the park cut in half though it would likely be minimized by swinging 105A up to 106th. Still would put a cut through the park but for a park spanning 108th to 104th, not sure how you get around that.

The Fraser Highway widening requires 0 property acquisition and I think they are just waiting until the mode of rapid transit is decided aka SkyTrain. If it is SkyTrain I'm fairly certain we'll see widening start ASAP since it isn't Surrey doing the widening but the Provincial Government.

Honestly though you reduce down 104th and 100th widening + Fraser Highway should be sufficient in the near term to handle the changes in traffic patterns so I'm less concerned about 105A which I think is a lot longer down the road.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Running Vancouver buses what seems like every 5 minutes (whether that's real or imagined) while the rest of the region tends to get buses every 30 minutes seems like a money pit for the rest of the region to subsidize Vancouver - that doesn't seem fair either.

If anything it's the other way around. Almost all the Vancouver routes are profitable. Don't believe me? Look at Translink's Bus Performance Review.

[swimmer_spe]

The extension to Langley being a Skytrain line makes sense.
The L - could it be extended as another Skytrain line completely?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The extension to Langley being a Skytrain line makes sense.
The L - could it be extended as another Skytrain line completely?

They'd probably have to do another study for that.

An at-grade SkyTrain is basically an expensive LRT.
There's room on King George for an elevated line, but the Expo's in the way.
A subway might work (depending on the capital cost/ridership estimates), but it'd be a very hard sell to other areas waiting for their own Skytrains - if I were a politician, I'd immediately turn around and accuse Surrey of double-dipping.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They'd probably have to do another study for that.

An at-grade SkyTrain is basically an expensive LRT.
There's room on King George for an elevated line, but the Expo's in the way.
A subway might work (depending on the capital cost/ridership estimates), but it'd be a very hard sell to other areas waiting for their own Skytrains - if I were a politician, I'd immediately turn around and accuse Surrey of double-dipping.

What i mean about the L, if they built it as a separate line, but a Skytrain line, is there anywhere for it to get extended to to make it a worthwhile venture?

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by jhausner

There's only a few properties along 100th that need to be purchased for widening and that's between 138th and 140th, 2 of which have "for sale signs" on right now and 1 of which is an empty lot so I'd be surprised if they aren't ones being purchased. The rest is Green Timbers so nothing there.

So I still see 100th as being possible in the next few years at least. And the environmental aspect is just ridiculous. The 100th stretch is largely grass with, to me at least, very little impact on anything and for the area it would be nice to have a REAL sidewalk down 100th so my wife, child, and I don't need to effectively walk on the road to use Green Timbers that way.

This is not my opinions, but what I learned during my stint in the City. In fact, the 100th Ave widening has had several target dates, 2008, 2012 and now 2020. Each time, the same concerns have come out regarding a) environmental lobbyists opposing these projects and b) traffic speed and flow.

With Fraser Highway, the Engineers and Transportation Planning team were able to consult and compromise with locals regarding Fraser Hwy. These were pretty major in my opinion: no loss of park space, no 92nd Ave expansion, no 148th widening

105th though I can see the issue. Hawthorn is a great park and not sure how they'd get the 105th through, would hate to see the park cut in half though it would likely be minimized by swinging 105A up to 106th. Still would put a cut through the park but for a park spanning 108th to 104th, not sure how you get around that.

Honestly though you reduce down 104th and 100th widening + Fraser Highway should be sufficient in the near term to handle the changes in traffic patterns so I'm less concerned about 105A which I think is a lot longer down the road.

104th if a pretty major corridor during rush-hour, not to mention the only corridor provides direct access to Highway #1 and Fraser Heights. Redirecting that traffic along 108th and 100th Ave creates choke-points at several intersections. This is poor planning. This could be akin to reducing 41st Ave to 2 lanes and redirecting traffic along 33rd and 49th Ave.

When this stupid project was announced, the initial plans were for the following:
-105A-106 Ave thoroughfare which would have ran on the northern side of Hawthrone Park
-102 Ave thoroughfare which would have connected Guildford to Central Surrey
-100th Ave widening
-92nd Ave W-E thoroughfare

The truth is that the City underestimate the cost of the "L Line" and is now attempting to put off several necessary road improvements to save costs. At this rate, I would even be surprised if they go ahead with the 100th Ave improvements.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

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

I understand this, but 2025 opening for 6 km extension is excessive. Calgary's new LRT line will also have a large tunnel, rather deep too under the river, and I would argue that the M Line extension is further along in design, so why would it open later?

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I understand this, but 2025 opening for 6 km extension is excessive. Calgary's new LRT line will also have a large tunnel, rather deep too under the river, and I would argue that the M Line extension is further along in design, so why would it open later?

Well to start, enough funding is committed to actually build to tunnel. That helps things.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by andasen

Well to start, enough funding is committed to actually build to tunnel. That helps things.

These timelines assume that finances are in place.

[ClaytonA]

Remember this all (Broadway and first version of SOF) was first announced January 14, 2008.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/03/14-billion-transit-plan-b-c-liberals-conveniently-forgot/

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

These timelines assume that finances are in place.

Translink's timeline for the Broadway extension:

If these business cases are accepted and funding from all three levels of government is confirmed in 2017, construction could begin as early as 2019. Construction is expected to take 4 to 6 years.

From: http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Pro...rojects/Broadway-SkyTrain-Extension.aspx

[logan5]

Say what? 4 to 6 years to go 5 km's?

[Metro-One]

That is exactly what I am saying, seems excruciatingly slow for such a short project.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by logan5

Say what? 4 to 6 years to go 5 km's?

There are probably underground utilities along Broadway that need relocating, which would take a year or two before tunnel boring can even begin.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

This is not my opinions, but what I learned during my stint in the City. In fact, the 100th Ave widening has had several target dates, 2008, 2012 and now 2020. Each time, the same concerns have come out regarding a) environmental lobbyists opposing these projects and b) traffic speed and flow.

Just silly. It's such a small stretch that needs to be widened. Literally 10 blocks, 8 of which are on the EDGE of park land and would improve both cycling and pedestrian access and likely make it safer around Lena Shaw as they'd have to install better lighting and sidewalks.

It's absolutely dreadful for children walking to school and anyone for that matter along 100th and quite frankly the environmental impact is basically 0 I really dislike lobbyists in all forms. Cars moving > cars idling and 100 or so trees in the grand scheme of Surrey which has probably 1 million+ trees.

I wonder if any of these lobby groups actually live anywhere near the area.

104th if a pretty major corridor during rush-hour, not to mention the only corridor provides direct access to Highway #1 and Fraser Heights. Redirecting that traffic along 108th and 100th Ave creates choke-points at several intersections. This is poor planning. This could be akin to reducing 41st Ave to 2 lanes and redirecting traffic along 33rd and 49th Ave.

Very true. Not to mention it directly connects to the SFPR too. That said with traffic and light timings, I find it is typically quicker to use 100th to get to/from HWY1 these days and I'll often get off HWY1 then head up 156th to 100th then down there to Surrey Central. Each time it saves me 5-10 minutes of travel time actually.

That said it does cause a bunch of turns at intersections and if a LOT of people did that you're right it would be a bit crazy.

When this stupid project was announced, the initial plans were for the following:
-105A-106 Ave thoroughfare which would have ran on the northern side of Hawthrone Park
-102 Ave thoroughfare which would have connected Guildford to Central Surrey
-100th Ave widening
-92nd Ave W-E thoroughfare

The truth is that the City underestimate the cost of the "L Line" and is now attempting to put off several necessary road improvements to save costs. At this rate, I would even be surprised if they go ahead with the 100th Ave improvements.

Well then here's hoping the L Line actually dies. :-) Honestly i think the 96-B is covering fine and with the queue jumper lanes now in place on KGB it seems to be fairly predictable. Widen Fraser Highway, build SkyTrain, then re-evaluate imho.

*shrug*

Still think it ridiculous not to widen 100th sooner than later. Their Cosmos site still says it is 1-3 years mind you that lines up with 2020 as you pointed out.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Remember this all (Broadway and first version of SOF) was first announced January 14, 2008.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/03/14-billion-transit-plan-b-c-liberals-conveniently-forgot/

And you can thank everyone voting against the sales tax increase for tacking on 10+ years to the original timeline.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That is exactly what I am saying, seems excruciatingly slow for such a short project.

From what I know the geology along Broadway is much the same as North Delta, mainly a lot of boulders and sub-surface rock that is extremely difficult to cut through. Using a TBM will be really slow through there, cost quite a bit, and potentially run into issues with the geology. It's not like TBMs cut through the ground like it is butter.

Cut and cover would speed the project up quite a bit I'd imagine but would never happen given the disruption to the corridor and it would ultimately be political suicide based on the experiences of the Canada Line construction.

So 4-6 years is very likely geological problem caused delays.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jhausner

From what I know the geology along Broadway is much the same as North Delta, mainly a lot of boulders and sub-surface rock that is extremely difficult to cut through. Using a TBM will be really slow through there, cost quite a bit, and potentially run into issues with the geology. It's not like TBMs cut through the ground like it is butter.

Cut and cover would speed the project up quite a bit I'd imagine but would never happen given the disruption to the corridor and it would ultimately be political suicide based on the experiences of the Canada Line construction.

So 4-6 years is very likely geological problem caused delays.

Broadway's screwed regardless of what construction method is used. The stations have to be majorly excavated at only 1 km intervals. Even if the cost was the same, the time savings would be worth it. 4 to 6 years? jesus christ that will be painful to watch.