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

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Honestly I do not see lot of buses terminating at skytrain stations on fraser hwy. Lot of people in Surrey and Langley use buses to get across town. I know some people need to transfer between 2 buses just to get around some times in Surrey. Having them terminate at the skytrain stops on fraser could force people to have to go bus skytrain bus. Which could actually cut down the number of people using transit.

320- lots of people board along Fraser Highway
325- lots of passengers along 140th get off and on at Surrey Central
335- lots of commuters along 160th Ave commute to Surrey Central; buses are often packed during rushhour
326- less ridership along this route, but this serves 156th and 104th.
395- riders in Cloverdale take this bus or the 320 to get to the skytrain; sometimes see this packed enroute to Surrey Central
375- serves Panorama Ridge and 152nd
502/503- serves Fraser Highway. Often packed during rushhour and service is excruciatingly slow.

All these buses often arrive and depart packed at King George and/or Surrey Central.

[Trainguy]

I took the survey and gave them my reasons for NOT supporting the LRT pipe dream. Build the Skytrain to Langley first because it will have the most impact for more than just Surrey.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by casper

In principle, I think the Lower Mainland eventually needs LRT (lets call it street cars since that is what it is). Well suited to locations that require a lower capacity, lower frequency service that can not justify the cost of skytrain.

What is odd about this is, this is not a route that requires lower capacity or frequency. How can this possible be this expensive.

I disagree. Street cars have zero advantages in today's world and in the near future will be useless and expensive. BRT systems are great and have come a long way. With modern buses, modern BRT stops, and smart traffic control, street cars simply cannot compete. There is no benefit in digging up a road and laying down rail for transit.

As little as 10 years ago I admit I thought differently but I have since reconsidered. The word keeps changing along with technologies. BRT is superior in every way including comfort for everything that does not need supper high capacity.

[Metro-One]

Filled out the survey. Gave a luke-warm support for the first phase, but really pushed for sky train in the second phase.

Seriously, how can anyone seriously advocate for anything different? The Expo Line currently terminate precisely in the location and direction of the desired corridor...

[nname]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Seriously, how can anyone seriously advocate for anything different? The Expo Line currently terminate precisely in the location and direction of the desired corridor...

The Evergreen Line even have switches and platform pre-built, and they were seriously considered demolish them for LRT.

I bet if the rapid transit is ever extended to Port Coquitlam, there will be the same LRT vs SkyTrain debate, even though the branch is already built with 100m of tracks laid.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

320- lots of people board along Fraser Highway
325- lots of passengers along 140th get off and on at Surrey Central
335- lots of commuters along 160th Ave commute to Surrey Central; buses are often packed during rushhour
326- less ridership along this route, but this serves 156th and 104th.
395- riders in Cloverdale take this bus or the 320 to get to the skytrain; sometimes see this packed enroute to Surrey Central
375- serves Panorama Ridge and 152nd
502/503- serves Fraser Highway. Often packed during rushhour and service is excruciatingly slow.

All these buses often arrive and depart packed at King George and/or Surrey Central.

Not to mention

345 - serves 152nd street to Fraser Highway and King George Station (weekdays only)

395 often cleans up after 502's work. 148th street westbound is a TERRIBLE stop in the morning with almost all 395s and 502s being full - passengers there may just end up waiting for the 345 to come by every 30 minutes. Its been the case even past 8am. With the PM terminus being moved to King George in 2014 (PM service used to depart Surrey Central from the 502 bay), I would say that ridership on 395 southbound has decreased, leaving Fraser highway customers with less options.

503 is also badly designed in that nobody west of Langley can use it going to Surrey Central. Drop off only starting at Langley centre. Less and less packed going to Surrey Central in the morning.

[swimmer_spe]

Can someone help me understand why LRT is getting the traction that it is getting?

[Rico]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can someone help me understand why LRT is getting the traction that it is getting?

Legacy politics.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by nname

The Evergreen Line even have switches and platform pre-built, and they were seriously considered demolish them for LRT.

I bet if the rapid transit is ever extended to Port Coquitlam, there will be the same LRT vs SkyTrain debate, even though the branch is already built with 100m of tracks laid.

I think it's important to do due diligence at the time of decision making. In the case of Surrey, there's nothing wrong with both an "L" line and a Skytrain to Langley. Whether that L should be LRT or BRT or something else is up for debate though...

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think it's important to do due diligence at the time of decision making. In the case of Surrey, there's nothing wrong with both an "L" line and a Skytrain to Langley. Whether that L should be LRT or BRT or something else is up for debate though...

I honestly think it would be exponentially better to paint a couple of lanes of roadway a different colour with the words "BUSES" and "ONLY" every x00 amount of meters instead of tearing it up and possibly leaving other lanes and intersections out of service as they are very likely to be blocked off by construction equipment/debris/fences. If you need more capacity, you can always just add more buses on the line and build more garages as needed. Maybe even see about adding bi-articulated buses if law permits.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

the BRT that was down No. 3rd in Richmond would work good for this "L-line." that should be looked at as an option by Surrey.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the BRT that was down No. 3rd in Richmond would work good for this "L-line." that should be looked at as an option by Surrey.

It's definitely time to have a real BRT system in the borders of MV.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think it's important to do due diligence at the time of decision making. In the case of Surrey, there's nothing wrong with both an "L" line and a Skytrain to Langley. Whether that L should be LRT or BRT or something else is up for debate though...

Has there been debate on here of the location of the lines? The only debate I've seen has been on the technology (bus, LRT, Skytrain).

I think the only reason people in Surrey (outside of city council) want LRT is because they want better transit and they're told that LRT will do that and it will be cheaper to build than Skytrain. Of course those selling that story forget to include the operating costs, which wipes out any perceived advantage of LRT. Skytrain down Fraser Hwy has a lot of support.

If the majority of Surrey's buses were increased to every 20 mins (15 mins during rush hour), with a few B Line routes and maybe a few east / west routes added to make it a little more grid-like, then the majority would give the boot to LRT in Surrey.

[Aroundtheworld]

Having had conversations with politicians in Surrey (including Linda Hepner) the biggest reason they are pursuing light rail instead of other modes is because they believe it is the most compatible with the land use and urban design they want to see. This is where I disagree with them: there is no good reason you can't have great land use planning and urban design with proper BRT and Skytrain (if the guideway is on one side of the street).

I also think in the case of the Langley line there's an ulterior motive in intentionally making Surrey Central the exchange and therefore the natural centre of the South of Fraser, even though this will inconvenience many commuters. If people have to get off an LRT and onto a Skytrain, they will be spending time and therefore money in the area, which benefits Surrey.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I also think in the case of the Langley line there's an ulterior motive in intentionally making Surrey Central the exchange and therefore the natural centre of the South of Fraser, even though this will inconvenience many commuters. If people have to get off an LRT and onto a Skytrain, they will be spending time and therefore money in the area, which benefits Surrey.

Intentionally making people wait for a train, in the hope that they buy something in Surrey in the meantime... not sure if that's funny, desperate, or just plain stupid.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Intentionally making people wait for a train, in the hope that they buy something in Surrey in the meantime... not sure if that's funny, desperate, or just plain stupid.

Extending the high-capacity Expo Line into the lower capacity South of Fraser Suburbs is a bad idea for precisely that reason- It's inefficient to have Expo line cars hovering half-empty around Surrey as the trains in Metrotown are starting to resemble those in East Asia.

Keep the two systems separate. My ideal Skytrain line would go from White Rock along King George to Surrey Central (Transfer), then out from 108 to Guildford, down 152 to Fraser, and from Fraser to Langley Memorial. Only issue is missing out on Surrey Outpatient, but it otherwise fills all the lines from Phase 1, and 2 of Translink's Plan.

It's really the best compromise.

Originally Posted by cornholio

I disagree. Street cars have zero advantages in today's world and in the near future will be useless and expensive. BRT systems are great and have come a long way. With modern buses, modern BRT stops, and smart traffic control, street cars simply cannot compete. There is no benefit in digging up a road and laying down rail for transit.

As little as 10 years ago I admit I thought differently but I have since reconsidered. The word keeps changing along with technologies. BRT is superior in every way including comfort for everything that does not need supper high capacity.

Eh, at this point, I'd see LRT. We already have some around False Creek, and so it would have lower long term maintenance costs. Besides, in most systems, the Translink baseline LRT and BRT systems both will need an entirely new lane built for them anyways.

Plus, it's more politically palatable.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Has there been debate on here of the location of the lines? The only debate I've seen has been on the technology (bus, LRT, Skytrain).

I think the only reason people in Surrey (outside of city council) want LRT is because they want better transit and they're told that LRT will do that and it will be cheaper to build than Skytrain. Of course those selling that story forget to include the operating costs, which wipes out any perceived advantage of LRT. Skytrain down Fraser Hwy has a lot of support.

If the majority of Surrey's buses were increased to every 20 mins (15 mins during rush hour), with a few B Line routes and maybe a few east / west routes added to make it a little more grid-like, then the majority would give the boot to LRT in Surrey.

Not really, where else would you build them other than on the biggest corridors in Surrey?

And if they wanted bus service, they should push for the Burnaby Mountain Gondola and Broadway Extension. That alone cuts ~15% of bus service for South of Fraser.

[nname]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Extending the high-capacity Expo Line into the lower capacity South of Fraser Suburbs is a bad idea for precisely that reason- It's inefficient to have Expo line cars hovering half-empty around Surrey as the trains in Metrotown are starting to resemble those in East Asia.

It is not a requirement for all the train to travel from end to end. In fact, during off-peak, only half of the capacity from Metrotown will go to Surrey while the other half goes to Production. They could reduce the frequency by half again after King George and would still have a service that matches the proposed LRT line.

A line that goes everywhere seems attractive on paper, but it is slower. If it is slower, it is less attractive to the people who want to get to somewhere in a hurry. Slower it also means more trains required. More trains mean more cost, both capital and operating. Longer line means the demand would be less evenly distributed. From TransLink's study, the Langley line would have almost twice as much demand as the Newton line even without the Guildford detour, and the segment north of Newton would also have much higher demand than the extension to White Rock. The line would end up having its own inefficient Metrotown vs. SoF Suburb sections. The difference is, LRT line would be more difficult to short-turn trains for the busier segment compared to the automated system, as it require space to park the terminating train for crew rest and recovery.

If the SkyTrain extension along Fraser is built, the projection for 2041 is 6,800 peak riders per hour. I don't think the train would be that empty. In comparison, this figure is higher than the current peak load for both Millennium and Canada Line.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Can someone help me understand why LRT is getting the traction that it is getting?

If in Surrey, yes, legacy politics. If in general, it's because it provides more photo-ops and a rhetoric of progress at a much cheaper price than true rapid transit does. It looks like rapid transit but is cheaper, so it's popular to build and create a sense of improvement, even if it doesn't improve much of anything.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Eh, at this point, I'd see LRT. We already have some around False Creek, and so it would have lower long term maintenance costs.

Wait, what? The Downtown Historical Railway only ran for a few months back in 2010, and was permanently closed in 2011 because of limited political enthusiasm... and because scrap metal thieves made off with most of the overhead wire.