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

[Express691]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Grade separating the lines doesn't stop this from happening. How many times does the SkyTrain get shut down because someone jumps in front of it?

But although grade separation doesnt stop deaths from happenning, i would think that it reduces the chances of deaths. With an at-grade system, you still have potential for contact with cars and humans in track sections between stations.

On the same day the death in Calgary happened, a deaf and mute person was struck and killed in Denver.
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/19/rtd-r-line-kills-hearing-impaired-refugee/

On another note, a fallen tree across LRT overhead caused severe delays in Baltimore this evening. (This argument is geared towards Pro-BRT since the same thing can happen on skytrain at the at-grade sections)
http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/downed-tree-on-light-rail-tracks-disrupts-baltimore-service

[Reecemartin]

In terms of making the Mk 4 wider I don't think that's possible the Mk 3 is probably already maximally wide and I doubt we are getting a Mk 4 any time soon. At least in the interim we can grow Expo Line capacity through rearranged seating and extended trains. Something which is looking ideal with the numerous expanding stations. (I just hope we make sure that the Expo Line is well maintained so we don't see the catastrophic results mentioned in other threads)

Totally agree with the posts about streetcars, people seem to be completely opposed to even considering them. In reality they are what they are, better than buses and worse than RT (not equally different). I think that Fraser Highway should be ST because it's really a regional connection, to other cities however, if Surrey wants to build out an LRT Network that's also a good idea for linking its other town centres with high quality transit at a price that will allow it to actually build a network at a faster pace. People seem to forget than when placed in a grade separated row LRT can be ATO making it essentially equivalent to Skytrain, so in the long term who knows maybe Surrey would convert the city centre portion to running tunneled.

In terms of towers, I will admit the towers in Missasauga are a personal taste, what I really would just like to see is Surrey build an interesting skyline (which IMO they are already doing with Coast Capital and 3 Civic plaza) Vancouver has some diversity but most of its towers are pretty similar in appearance (that's obviously changing). I'd love to see something like Toronto, where it feels like their is no one single standard design and you see far more unique buildings e.g. ICE, all the bank towers, L tower, Aura, One Bloor etc.

In sum I hope Surrey can try to take the best of many other Canadian cities and out it together to create something that someday may truly rival Vancouver.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Totally agree with the posts about streetcars, people seem to be completely opposed to even considering them.

Light rail advocates oppose Surrey's legacy project too. I think it's a mistake, and I spent all of November defending an Arbutus LRT. Shit, even Malcolm Johnston dislikes it.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I think that Fraser Highway should be ST because it's really a regional connection, to other cities however, if Surrey wants to build out an LRT Network that's also a good idea for linking its other town centres with high quality transit at a price that will allow it to actually build a network at a faster pace.

Or you can spend the LRT money on improving the Surrey/Langley bus grid, which still has room to grow. SoF regular buses have 20 minute headways, and the existing 96 B-Line has 7-8 minutes; at best, a brand new tram system will start out with 6-minute headways. For the price of one tram line, you can upgrade the whole regular network to 10-15 minutes and the B-Line to 3-5, so it'd better be a damn good tram line (and AFAIK, it's not).

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

People seem to forget than when placed in a grade separated row LRT can be ATO making it essentially equivalent to Skytrain

Sure, if the ROW is parallel to the road; Surrey's plan has the ROW going right down the median!

That means the LRT has to drive slower to minimize the chance of a collision (jaywalkers, idiot drivers, etc). It also means no left turns on King George, adding more congestion. And it means that any crash at an intersection - whether or not a tram is involved - will cause delays. Surrey will essentially have a slightly-larger 96 that can't switch lanes, taking up space on a main arterial road and literally splitting it in half.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

so in the long term who knows maybe Surrey would convert the city centre portion to running tunneled.

Which begs the question - why not just dig a tunnel now? And that begs another - if most of the route is going to be underground, why not just make it SkyTrain?

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Shit, even Malcolm Johnston dislikes it.

Malcolm Johnston despises all transit that is not the tram-train to chilliwack on the old interurban line. It doesn't matter where it is or what tech.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or you can spend the LRT money on improving the Surrey/Langley bus grid, which still has room to grow. SoF regular buses have 20 minute headways, and the existing 96 B-Line has 7-8 minutes; at best, a brand new tram system will start out with 6-minute headways. For the price of one tram line, you can upgrade the whole regular network to 10-15 minutes and the B-Line to 3-5, so it'd better be a damn good tram line (and AFAIK, it's not).

Sure, if the ROW is parallel to the road; Surrey's plan has the ROW going right down the median!

That means the LRT has to drive slower to minimize the chance of a collision (jaywalkers, idiot drivers, etc). It also means no left turns on King George, adding more congestion. And it means that any crash at an intersection - whether or not a tram is involved - will cause delays. Surrey will essentially have a slightly-larger 96 that can't switch lanes, taking up space on a main arterial road and literally splitting it in half.

Which begs the question - why not just dig a tunnel now? And that begs another - if most of the route is going to be underground, why not just make it SkyTrain?

I think I've said almost all of that at one time or another, although I'm pretty much sure only some of Surrey's buses are 20 minutes - most are still be at 30 minute headways.

You've basically summed up my opposition of their LRT plan - running it down the middle of the road and mixed with traffic. Take out most of the chances of a collision with a car or pedestrian and it looks plausible. It's not there yet.

Tunnelling is a good idea. My concern with the L Line is 104th as there's a hill - how deep will they have to dig it (I'm sure there's a minimum standard) and how much of a grade can it handle. I'm guessing the Guildford station would have to be fairly deep underground compared to the rest of the line.

Plus - bored tunnel vs cut and cover. We know what's Surrey's budget would prefer but how much of King George and 104th could be worked on at once without causing traffic hell?

[Reecemartin]

I don't think this came across, Im aware of the current plan to have LRT in the median what I was suggesting about ROW's is just that in the future certain sections could be separated. The cost of doing a few grade separation years after a line opens is not the same as building a Skytrain line. Same for tunneling under city centre, just something that they could do in the future to free up space at ground level in the core.

Imo the dangers are pretty overblown in terms of accidents, as long as Left turns are banned it really doesn't seem like a huge issue, hate bringing Toronto into the mix but it's often a good comparison - look at the 510 Spadina which is almost an LRT, it has 0 traffic priority and left turns in front are still allowed and I ride it multiple times per week and Ive never seen a car accident on the tracks or involving a streetcar. This line actually provides really good service IMO and it would be excellent service if they just banned left turns and allowed the lights to be changed by the trains.

[memememe76]

How in the world do you ban left turns on 104th?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't think this came across, Im aware of the current plan to have LRT in the median what I was suggesting about ROW's is just that in the future certain sections could be separated. The cost of doing a few grade separation years after a line opens is not the same as building a Skytrain line. Same for tunneling under city centre, just something that they could do in the future to free up space at ground level in the core.

Imo the dangers are pretty overblown in terms of accidents, as long as Left turns are banned it really doesn't seem like a huge issue, hate bringing Toronto into the mix but it's often a good comparison - look at the 510 Spadina which is almost an LRT, it has 0 traffic priority and left turns in front are still allowed and I ride it multiple times per week and Ive never seen a car accident on the tracks or involving a streetcar. This line actually provides really good service IMO and it would be excellent service if they just banned left turns and allowed the lights to be changed by the trains.

Ahem:
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/tow-truck-removes-suv-stuck-inside-ttc-tunnel-1.3297750

According to the TTC, the 509 Habourfront and 510 Spadina streetcars are currently turning back at Spadina and Queens Quay.

[Kisai]

This just goes right back to the problem of engineering. If a rail system is at grade, anywhere, it will be compromised by people who don't know better.

Here's a few scenarios I predict for the Surrey LRT:

• Metal theft
• Power line sag
• Rails being damaged from poor drainage
• Cars parked on the rails
• Cars parked illegally and car traffic having to drive into the LRV ROW
• Cars driving down the LRV ROW
• Cars running into median/stops
• LRV's hitting cars making illegal left turns
• LRV's hitting pedestrians
• LRV's having accidents in the yard
• LRV's dewiring in intersections
• LRV's getting t-boned by people running red-lights
• Accidents in the intersection backing up traffic
• Derailments backing up car traffic
• Emergency services being unable to get past LRV rails during accidents due to traffic being backed up

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe we should give people what they want, but modernized. The old lines might not now be where streetcars should be, but, maybe it is time to have 3 levels of local transit - bus, streetcar, and RT.

It works well in Toronto.

Works well in Paris, too. In fact, countingthe RER, we have 4 levels of service here, and a huge "Métro Grand Paris" mega-system in the pipe, ground broken already.
https://www.google.fr/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&...mT7k2GpnUTL8AfUBH-w&ust=1487951359566730

[Bdawe]

[*]Metal theft

kinda hard to do with live wires
[*]Power line sag

?
[*]Rails being damaged from poor drainage[*]Cars parked on the rails

it's in the middle of the road
[*]Cars parked illegally and car traffic having to drive into the LRV ROW[*]Cars driving down the LRV ROW[*]Cars running into median/stops[*]LRV's hitting cars making illegal left turns[*]LRV's hitting pedestrians[*]LRV's having accidents in the yard

that's different from anything else?
[*]LRV's dewiring in intersections

Unless for some weird reason Surrey LRT is being made trolleybus compatible, it won't dewire because most new installed LRT lines use pantographs rather than trolleypoles to collect power
[*]LRV's getting t-boned by people running red-lights[*]Accidents in the intersection backing up traffic[*]Derailments backing up car traffic[*]Emergency services being unable to get past LRV rails during accidents due to traffic being backed up

That's a 'too many cars' problem

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Ahem:
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/tow-truck-removes-suv-stuck-inside-ttc-tunnel-1.3297750

I see the arguments, though honestly it's a show of the benefits of the numerous loops on Torontos system that mean this doesn't actually create that significant a disruption along the whole line.

This argument doesn't really have legs in my opinion though in terms of what it's saying: LRT is incompatible with stupid people. Well that's any different from any form of transit, a month or so ago a guy was running through the tunnels on Line 2 Subway and he caused a massive shut down just as well. Nobody is going to make the argument that subway technology is inherently flawed (without plaform screen doors) just because now and then something happens.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Works well in Paris, too. In fact, countingthe RER, we have 4 levels of service here, and a huge "Métro Grand Paris" mega-system in the pipe, ground broken already.
https://www.google.fr/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&...mT7k2GpnUTL8AfUBH-w&ust=1487951359566730

Systems like that are really what we should aspire to IMO, if our goal really is to have say 50% of people move by transit then we need to stop acting like the entire solution can consist of very expensive skytrain and incredibly crowded buses. I don't think the argument for buses which I usually hear "The 99 carries 100,000 people per day" really is a good one. Of course we can carry tons of people on buses, just look at how big our roads are! At some point so think we need to come to accept that we can have many different modes of transit for many different transit problems. And as you mention it seems what most cities are finding ideal is a hierarchy where as the service becomes more expensive in terms of construction, it also sees increased speed and capacity. Since Vancouver is not as big as Paris we probably don't need Crossrail type services (IK that's in London) however, I definetly can see the optimal solution being high capacity Skytrain for intraregional service, well designed LRT for inter neighborhood service, and buses for local and low volume services.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

At some point so think we need to come to accept that we can have many different modes of transit for many different transit problems.

Just because we "can" does not mean we should.

LRT is:

• just as expensive than skytrain
• requires drivers to operate and therefore have significantly higher operating cost
• run down the middle road where they can interfere with other transit modes with a much higher probability.
• has the chance that it can be stopped at red lights
• much lower frequencies possible than a BRT or Skytrain
• inflexible frequencies
• require a new operations and maintenance facility
• take up road space and restrict traffic movement
• take exactly the same amount of time as a bus
• no more comfortable than a bus

There is literally NO good reason to ever consider LRT over BRT, not to even mention skytrain.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't think this came across, Im aware of the current plan to have LRT in the median what I was suggesting about ROW's is just that in the future certain sections could be separated. The cost of doing a few grade separation years after a line opens is not the same as building a Skytrain line. Same for tunneling under city centre, just something that they could do in the future to free up space at ground level in the core.

Actually, it's exactly the same. SkyTrain is so expensive mostly because it's elevated or in a tunnel.

Not much point in building at-grade track, waiting 10-20 years, then ripping up the tracks to build the same tracks in a tunnel below. We might as well build the tunnel now and save some money and time.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

This line actually provides really good service IMO and it would be excellent service if they just banned left turns and allowed the lights to be changed by the trains.

I don't know much about King George, but if the City banned left turns along Broadway, traffic would quickly become a nightmare. Pass.

Originally Posted by Kisai

• Cars parked on the rails
• Cars parked illegally and car traffic having to drive into the LRV ROW
• Cars driving down the LRV ROW
• Cars running into median/stops

We know you think all light rail is bad, but let's be realistic here. All it takes is a line of green paint to stop cars parking or driving in the bike lanes - the median is curb-separated grass.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

Just because we "can" does not mean we should.

LRT is:

• just as expensive than skytrain
• requires drivers to operate and therefore have significantly higher operating cost
• run down the middle road where they can interfere with other transit modes with a much higher probability.
• has the chance that it can be stopped at red lights
• much lower frequencies possible than a BRT or Skytrain
• inflexible frequencies
• require a new operations and maintenance facility
• take up road space and restrict traffic movement
• take exactly the same amount of time as a bus
• no more comfortable than a bus

There is literally NO good reason to ever consider LRT over BRT, not to even mention skytrain.

This is what I don't like, I not saying LRT is the solution to all transit problems but, some of these things are just not true. It doesn't make a good argument when it comes off like you think LRT can never work, because obviously that's not true like anything implementation is key.

-it is less expensive since it can run down the centre of a road something which largely works fine, when I say grade seperations it ISNT as expensive as Skytrain because I didn't say we would grade separated an entire line rather we could just grade separate the busiest intersections, if you only have to do 4 ot 5 seperations along a line it's still going to be much less than Skytrain

-saying that higher frequencies is not POSSIBLE is false,whether or not frequency would be lower is different but, nothing says you can't run high frequencies if you so choose, same for frequency variability

-It course it's correct that we would need a new OMC but that's going to be inevitable with any form of new rapid transit, you will either need to expand current centres of build new ones

-Saying it's no more comfortable than a bus is somewhat silly, there's admittedly lots of arguments against LRT many of which you make and are definetly real issues but, really when you say things like this it doesn't feel like you are trying to list pros and cons rather you are just trying to say every single thing is bad. Of course it's going to be a better ride than a bus LRT runs on rails which are smooth and also is capable of much less sudden movement, you also are unlikely to see the bobbing you sometimes see especially on articulated buses.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Actually, it's exactly the same. SkyTrain is so expensive mostly because it's elevated or in a tunnel.

Not much point in building at-grade track, waiting 10-20 years, then ripping up the tracks to build the same tracks in a tunnel below. We might as well build the tunnel now and save some money and time.



I don't know much about King George, but if the City banned left turns along Broadway, traffic would quickly become a nightmare. Pass.



We know you think all light rail is bad, but let's be realistic here. All it takes is a line of green paint to stop cars parking or driving in the bike lanes - the median is curb-separated grass.

I really do hope they go with grass in the medians, it's a really good look imo

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I think I've said almost all of that at one time or another, although I'm pretty much sure only some of Surrey's buses are 20 minutes - most are still be at 30 minute headways.

You've basically summed up my opposition of their LRT plan - running it down the middle of the road and mixed with traffic. Take out most of the chances of a collision with a car or pedestrian and it looks plausible. It's not there yet.

Tunnelling is a good idea. My concern with the L Line is 104th as there's a hill - how deep will they have to dig it (I'm sure there's a minimum standard) and how much of a grade can it handle. I'm guessing the Guildford station would have to be fairly deep underground compared to the rest of the line.

Plus - bored tunnel vs cut and cover. We know what's Surrey's budget would prefer but how much of King George and 104th could be worked on at once without causing traffic hell?

There was enough space at Lougheed to make Millennium Elevated, I'm pretty sure there's enough space in Surrey to make the L line Elevated.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Systems like that are really what we should aspire to IMO, if our goal really is to have say 50% of people move by transit then we need to stop acting like the entire solution can consist of very expensive skytrain and incredibly crowded buses. I don't think the argument for buses which I usually hear "The 99 carries 100,000 people per day" really is a good one. Of course we can carry tons of people on buses, just look at how big our roads are! At some point so think we need to come to accept that we can have many different modes of transit for many different transit problems. And as you mention it seems what most cities are finding ideal is a hierarchy where as the service becomes more expensive in terms of construction, it also sees increased speed and capacity. Since Vancouver is not as big as Paris we probably don't need Crossrail type services (IK that's in London) however, I definetly can see the optimal solution being high capacity Skytrain for intraregional service, well designed LRT for inter neighborhood service, and buses for local and low volume services.

Exactly, we have huge roads emblematic of other North American Cities. So LRT has even fewer advantages when there is enough space for buses on the road.


We have space for commuter Rail, at least in Burnaby (Pacific Central Line) and SoF. We should probably consider it the next time Expo starts reaching capacity. It would be nice to have a transportation system that truely competes with the expressways.




And if we really need a low-cost transit network on 'rails' connecting neighborhoods, why not a gondola? At least it spares up land on the road.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

This is what I don't like, I not saying LRT is the solution to all transit problems but, some of these things are just not true. It doesn't make a good argument when it comes off like you think LRT can never work, because obviously that's not true like anything implementation is key.

-it is less expensive since it can run down the centre of a road something which largely works fine, when I say grade seperations it ISNT as expensive as Skytrain because I didn't say we would grade separated an entire line rather we could just grade separate the busiest intersections, if you only have to do 4 ot 5 seperations along a line it's still going to be much less than Skytrain

-saying that higher frequencies is not POSSIBLE is false,whether or not frequency would be lower is different but, nothing says you can't run high frequencies if you so choose, same for frequency variability

-It course it's correct that we would need a new OMC but that's going to be inevitable with any form of new rapid transit, you will either need to expand current centres of build new ones

-Saying it's no more comfortable than a bus is somewhat silly, there's admittedly lots of arguments against LRT many of which you make and are definetly real issues but, really when you say things like this it doesn't feel like you are trying to list pros and cons rather you are just trying to say every single thing is bad. Of course it's going to be a better ride than a bus LRT runs on rails which are smooth and also is capable of much less sudden movement, you also are unlikely to see the bobbing you sometimes see especially on articulated buses.

The only one of those that buses can't do are probably the bobbling. And a lot of that could be removed if we decided to contact Tesla to make us some Electric Buses. The charging infrastructure would really expand its propagation in Metro Van.

LRT has a bit higher capacity, but at that point, make an elevated Skytrain, and regain some road space for parking space or another road lane- possibly even a larger Sidewalk and Bike lane (even though I think Bike Lanes aren't really a useful transportation-based addition, they're nice to ride on at least.)

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by fredinno

There was enough space at Lougheed to make Millennium Elevated, I'm pretty sure there's enough space in Surrey to make the L line Elevated.

Surrey has been like Richmond - they think elevated lines are ugly and 'divide the community'. The likelihood of them agreeing to an elevated L Line is somewhere between slim and none. They'd be more agreeable to the idea (but not the price) of a tunnelled line.

[swimmer_spe]

Is there an LRT line like what they plan for Surrey that exists in another city that had the same, or higher ridership than the Skytrain frequency and train size would deliver?