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

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's almost like the urban legend of how American Standard Gauge came about.

The US standard railroad gauge (width between the two rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That’s an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used? Because the American railways were designed by British expats, and that was the gauge they used in Britain.

Why did the British build them like that? Because the people who built the first rail lines also built the pre-railroad tramways, and that’s the gauge they used.

Why did they use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing.

Their wagons had that particular odd wheel spacing because if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagons would break down on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that’s the width of the roads.

Those old roads were built by the Romans, who built more or less all of the first long distance roads in Europe. The roads have been used ever since, and everybody's had to build their wagons to fit on those roads.

And those roads were built that way because - you guessed it - the Romans only needed them to be wide enough to fit their wagons. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for a Roman wagon.

So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse’s ass came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Roman wagons were made just wide enough to accommodate two horses' asses.

-----

It gets better.

When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs.

The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.

The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains.

The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel.

The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses’ behinds.

In conclusion, the size of the auxiliary engines of humanity’s most advanced vehicle EVER was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse’s ass. And you wonder why you can never get anywhere in life.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

BRT does not require:
> overhead wires (although they may do this anyways)
> relocation of underground utilities
> repavement of the road
> a new OMC
> custom built expensive LRT vehicles (instead can order more articulated buses)
> raised stations (kneeling buses can suffice)

Very little is needed to make a BRT work. Minimally, you could put in a 24/7 bus only camera enforced HOV lane, install signal priority measures, faregates at stations, electronic bus arrival message boards and you would still have a pretty amazing BRT system. For a little extra you could include overhead wires, physical medians and better station shelters.

Can you be more specific in what kind of "creep" you are concerned about?



You could say the same about an at-grade LRT. Removal of signal priority measures, reduced frequency, reduced speeds. Both BRT and LRT are susceptible, however since LRT costs more to operate from a fiscal standpoint, you are more likely to see features eaten away from such a system than BRT.

BRT is however susceptible to losing its exclusive right of way. If it does lose that feature then it then Translink would have to call it a B-Line and not a BRT. I'm not convinced this is a serious risk.

First, whether LRT or BRT I do not expect faregates, how do you see that working?

Well primarily some of the things you speak of i.e. I'd like to see electrification and that's a major cost, also would rather have newer buses specifically for BRT with wider sliding doors, something which will require some level of OMC refit as well as true level boarding. Also, camera controller HOV lanes arent compatible to exclusive median ROW which I think we would want for BRT as that's what would be happening with LRT (hov lanes sounds alot like B Line to me). Typically too when you are building a bus exclusive row you would rebuild it to a higher spec because buses as we know tend to wear down the road and we would be trying to save on maintenance cost. Without these we are starting to see creep, where we lose a fair number of BRT features to keep cost down.

Edit: Youve basically exemplified my point here with creep because you suggested we use standard buses, HOV lanes, and not level boarding. Now I understand these make implementation easier but, then the reason you are seeing lower costs is because you are losing many BRT features (at least you kept signal priority that is a must). If we are doing BRT we should be fighting for these features because otherwise what you've described to me really does sound like a B-Line. That's not comparable to a median LRT or Median running Metro Orange Line style BRT.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

First, whether LRT or BRT I do not expect faregates, how do you see that working?

There are examples of cities that have used fare gates with LRT. Istanbul is one such example. It has been four or five years since I have been there, if I remember correctly I believe you have these plastic tokens you buy that you use to open the gates.

Here is a photo


Image source (not mine), google found it at: https://urbanfinland.com/

[Reecemartin]

Imo a good way to pay, but isn't the whole point of fare gates to keep evaders out lol

[swimmer_spe]

As I understand it, the L route has a B-line bus on it, and the run to Langley will have one as well?

Leave that as is till the final extension to UBC is complete. By then, they will be wanting their own Skytrain.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As I understand it, the L route has a B-line bus on it, and the run to Langley will have one as well?

Leave that as is till the final extension to UBC is complete. By then, they will be wanting their own Skytrain.

The problem as I mentioned before is that this isn't looked at as what it really is which is a development project. Surrey wants to develop its core areas and in general the SoF has been fighting hard for some form of rapid transit, and with Surrey putting up most of the money municipally they will get to determine where it goes.

Istanbul's LRT is fairly ynice though if I remember correctly the stop spacings near the Blue Mosque were very big, IMO the best design for stations is something like like Vivas irrespective of whether we go with LRT or BRT, one of the best ways to create a sense of permanence is with somewhat substantial stations .
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8707/16848717399_faa7e19a91_b.jpg

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Imo a good way to pay, but isn't the whole point of fare gates to keep evaders out lol

The point of fare gates was to permit the provincial politicians in Victoria to generate attention for how they were improving safety and security on skytrain. They could actually generate some additional political points from stomping out the evaders.

It is unclear if the cost of fare gates installation and operation is paid for by stomping out the evaders. The projections put out before the gates went in was that it was a wash.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The problem as I mentioned before is that this isn't looked at as what it really is which is a development project. Surrey wants to develop its core areas and in general the SoF has been fighting hard for some form of rapid transit, and with Surrey putting up most of the money municipally they will get to determine where it goes.

If it is about dense development and getting developers committed building big buildings it makes sense. Promise a train station (skytrain, LRT, whatever) and you can go to a developer and say "Look what happened at Metrotown, Brentwood, etc." buy up land around our new station and think big.

I don't think they will get the same reaction to "look at our new fancy bus stop with these fancy fast buses".

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by casper

If it is about dense development and getting developers committed building big buildings it makes sense. Promise a train station (skytrain, LRT, whatever) and you can go to a developer and say "Look what happened at Metrotown, Brentwood, etc." buy up land around our new station and think big.

I don't think they will get the same reaction to "look at our new fancy bus stop with these fancy fast buses".

That's the point, obviously on an individual basis BRT has pretty much the same experience they problem is that even when you dress them up, buses just aren't as sexy.

As far as faregates go, I would even start to say they were not worth it, look at how many evaders they already have prevented it's very impressive honestly, in this case it just doesn't make sense because you can walk around the gates by walking on the row lolol

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The problem as I mentioned before is that this isn't looked at as what it really is which is a development project. Surrey wants to develop its core areas and in general the SoF has been fighting hard for some form of rapid transit, and with Surrey putting up most of the money municipally they will get to determine where it goes.

Istanbul's LRT is fairly ynice though if I remember correctly the stop spacings near the Blue Mosque were very big, IMO the best design for stations is something like like Vivas irrespective of whether we go with LRT or BRT, one of the best ways to create a sense of permanence is with somewhat substantial stations .
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8707/16848717399_faa7e19a91_b.jpg

If you have followed the VIVA progression, it all started as buses running with traffic. No transit priority lights, no bus lanes, Just POP and nicer buses.

VIVA NEXT is those stations. They replace the stops that existed curbside. The Rapidway is shoehorned into the roads.

The future for VIVA is to be turned into an LRT.

Surrey wants to skip everything and go straight to LRT.

VIVA runs the route between York U to Highway 7. When the Subway opens up to Highway 7, the VIVA will not be going to York U. Instead, they will just go to the Subway.

VIVA Runs between Highway 7 and Finch Station. There is plans for the subway to be extended up to Highway 7. When that happens, VIVA will stop running south of Highway 7.

For those 2 places south of Highway 7 that are in York Region, VIVA could have built a Rapidway, or said it would be an LRT, but, York Region is smarter than that.

I really hope Surrey learns from York Region.

I really hope that the powers to be tells Surrey that if they only want an LRT, they can pay for it entirely.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Edit: Youve basically exemplified my point here with creep because you suggested we use standard buses, HOV lanes, and not level boarding. Now I understand these make implementation easier but, then the reason you are seeing lower costs is because you are losing many BRT features (at least you kept signal priority that is a must). If we are doing BRT we should be fighting for these features because otherwise what you've described to me really does sound like a B-Line. That's not comparable to a median LRT or Median running Metro Orange Line style BRT.

Standard buses and curb level boarding will not decrease frequency or speed of the BRT. In other words, they are non-essential issues.

Sliding doors would be nice. I don't really know why this isn't a feature on current articulated buses. Many many routes running those kinds of buses would appreciate sliding doors.

There are two key features that define a BRT:
> Signal Priority
> Exclusive Right of Way 24/7

If people are abusing the bus only HOV, barriers can be put in place.

Also, Rapid transit should not be built to appease developers. It should be built for the best interest of riders.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If you have followed the VIVA progression, it all started as buses running with traffic. No transit priority lights, no bus lanes, Just POP and nicer buses.

VIVA NEXT is those stations. They replace the stops that existed curbside. The Rapidway is shoehorned into the roads.

The future for VIVA is to be turned into an LRT.

Surrey wants to skip everything and go straight to LRT.

VIVA runs the route between York U to Highway 7. When the Subway opens up to Highway 7, the VIVA will not be going to York U. Instead, they will just go to the Subway.

VIVA Runs between Highway 7 and Finch Station. There is plans for the subway to be extended up to Highway 7. When that happens, VIVA will stop running south of Highway 7.

For those 2 places south of Highway 7 that are in York Region, VIVA could have built a Rapidway, or said it would be an LRT, but, York Region is smarter than that.

I really hope Surrey learns from York Region.

I really hope that the powers to be tells Surrey that if they only want an LRT, they can pay for it entirely.

Imo York is not comparable for a lot of reasons, it's significantly less dense and also has a significant road network to begin with.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

Standard buses and curb level boarding will not decrease frequency or speed of the BRT. In other words, they are non-essential issues.

Sliding doors would be nice. I don't really know why this isn't a feature on current articulated buses. Many many routes running those kinds of buses would appreciate sliding doors.

There are two key features that define a BRT:
> Signal Priority
> Exclusive Right of Way 24/7

If people are abusing the bus only HOV, barriers can be put in place.

Also, Rapid transit should not be built to appease developers. It should be built for the best interest of riders.

They may be non-essential but that's just part of BRT creep. Unfortunately while focusing on riders is essential alot of major transit projects are just as much about generating development. If we are talking riders, most won't care if it's BRT or LRT since the service will be very similar. If you really want to talk about who might be pissed with a more expensive option, it will be taxpayers who don't ride transit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Imo York is not comparable for a lot of reasons, it's significantly less dense and also has a significant road network to begin with.

Population of Surrey - 517,000
Population of Vaughan - 288,000
Population of York Region -1,032,000

My point is?

Well, if Surrey has the density, then do the Skytrain. If it does not, then do LRT, but in stages. Stage one - a B-line route.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Population of Surrey - 517,000
Population of Vaughan - 288,000
Population of York Region -1,032,000

My point is?

Well, if Surrey has the density, then do the Skytrain. If it does not, then do LRT, but in stages. Stage one - a B-line route.

Well the 96 B Line already exists though haven't heard much about the Langlry one

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Well the 96 B Line already exists though haven't heard much about the Langlry one

So, once it gets as bad as the UBC ones, then, it is time to upgrade

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

They may be non-essential but that's just part of BRT creep.

Since standard buses and curb level boarding have nothing to do with signal priority nor an exclusive 24/7 right of way, therefore, from my perspective, they have nothing to do with BRT creep.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Unfortunately while focusing on riders is essential a lot of major transit projects are just as much about generating development. If we are talking riders, most won't care if it's BRT or LRT since the service will be very similar. If you really want to talk about who might be pissed with a more expensive option, it will be taxpayers who don't ride transit.

"As far as development, there are numerous cities that have seen development increase in conjunction with a Bus Rapid Transit system. For instance, in a 2013 report on transit-oriented development, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) concluded that per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, Bus Rapid Transit leverages more transit-oriented development investment than Light Rail or streetcars. As for potential for transit-oriented development, a city like Eugene, Oregon (roughly a third the size of Albuquerque) is listed as having $100 million worth of transit-oriented development since the opening of its EmX (Emerald Express) BRT system in 2007."

Primary Source
Secondary Source
2013 BRT Standard


BRT has shown it is significantly cheaper, better for development and better for transit riders.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

Since standard buses and curb level boarding have nothing to do with signal priority nor an exclusive 24/7 right of way, therefore, from my perspective, they have nothing to do with BRT creep.



"As far as development, there are numerous cities that have seen development increase in conjunction with a Bus Rapid Transit system. For instance, in a 2013 report on transit-oriented development, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) concluded that per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, Bus Rapid Transit leverages more transit-oriented development investment than Light Rail or streetcars. As for potential for transit-oriented development, a city like Eugene, Oregon (roughly a third the size of Albuquerque) is listed as having $100 million worth of transit-oriented development since the opening of its EmX (Emerald Express) BRT system in 2007."

Primary Source
Secondary Source
2013 BRT Standard


BRT has shown it is significantly cheaper, better for development and better for transit riders.

That's the problem, from what I remember Eugenes system is very high order with bus guidance etc. You are basically saying hey look this BRT system provided benefits (while being expensive) but then suggesting that a dumbed down system ( signal priority and dedicated lanes are minimum) will generate the same benefits. Imo that's no better than Surrey selling it's LRT as being the same as (whatever Very successful LRT you prefer) when really its not truly the same thing, its just similar. Also saying Eugene got development due to BRT doesn't say anything about LRT, I could say the same thing for Portland. Obviously both have there merits but what you posted isn't a direct comparison.

Now of course it's cheaper, but really do you have data that says when placed in comparable alignments BRT is preferred by riders? Of all of BRTs benefits being the preference of riders is one I'm not so sure about.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Or to dig a tunnel (at least for the Whalley section). Which, of course, would make it almost as expensive as the SkyTrain option.

Too many goddamn cross-streets. Light rail is best built on non-arterials or former rail corridors where traffic interaction is limited.

That would essentially make it Skytrain tho... The technology is so similar it wouldn't really be LRT anymore.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

But, the point is that grade separated doesn't belong on these routes for the foreseeable future, so really it should just be advocating for Expo Line to Langley, but Surrey doesn't what that to happen first because City Centre has alot more to gain from a system that requires a transfer I.e. BRT or LRT than from Skytrain which allows residents further down the line to bypass city centre for Metrotown or even DT Van. I think this definetly plays a part in the ordering of construction, because I think it's obvious that once things are said and done RT will come out as the winner on Fraser.

Whether or not you think LRT is a terrible solution or a great solution or a mediocre run of the mill solution, the city wants it for development, and residents along the line are probably going to want a train over a bus (developers certainly will), so we are kind of dead locked to LRT if we don't just build Fraser first. Remembering that the less transit inclined public isn't going spend time debating the inherent flaws on non-grade separated transit, most people will probably say: train or bus? TRAIN!

Then they should make a 5-phase El Skytrain system (there shoul. The first phase connects a new Skytrain line, transferring at Surrey Central, and with a small spur to 104 Ave. for Phase 2 (original Study RRT3).

If there's space for LRT, there's space for Elevated Rail, no questions asked.


Phase 2 is an extension of the Expo to Surrey Outpatient, and an extension of the new "Surrey Line" to Guildford, and then going south from 152 St. to merge with Fraser Hwy.

Phase 3 is the Skytrain extension to Langley Centre- Surface when possible, Elevated most of the way, and cut and cover subway for the last segment though Langley City.

Phase 4 sees the "Surrey Line" extended to Murrayville and Langley Memorial- along with an extension in Surrey from Newton to Strawberry Hills.

And if we ever get a Phase 5, down King George to White Rock Pier.


Between the Phases, the BMG and Broadway Lines would be built.

Makes everyone happy- the issue is funding for Skytrain, and the fact that everyone will have to wait a bit longer for everything to be built.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

First, whether LRT or BRT I do not expect faregates, how do you see that working?

Well primarily some of the things you speak of i.e. I'd like to see electrification and that's a major cost, also would rather have newer buses specifically for BRT with wider sliding doors, something which will require some level of OMC refit as well as true level boarding. Also, camera controller HOV lanes arent compatible to exclusive median ROW which I think we would want for BRT as that's what would be happening with LRT (hov lanes sounds alot like B Line to me). Typically too when you are building a bus exclusive row you would rebuild it to a higher spec because buses as we know tend to wear down the road and we would be trying to save on maintenance cost. Without these we are starting to see creep, where we lose a fair number of BRT features to keep cost down.

Edit: Youve basically exemplified my point here with creep because you suggested we use standard buses, HOV lanes, and not level boarding. Now I understand these make implementation easier but, then the reason you are seeing lower costs is because you are losing many BRT features (at least you kept signal priority that is a must). If we are doing BRT we should be fighting for these features because otherwise what you've described to me really does sound like a B-Line. That's not comparable to a median LRT or Median running Metro Orange Line style BRT.

Even with creep, BRT is vastly cheaper than LRT. Instead of a LRT from Guildford to Newton, we could get a BRT from Hwy 1 in North Surrey to White Rock Pier, with a potential connection to the US border should demand arise.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

That's the point, obviously on an individual basis BRT has pretty much the same experience they problem is that even when you dress them up, buses just aren't as sexy.

As far as faregates go, I would even start to say they were not worth it, look at how many evaders they already have prevented it's very impressive honestly, in this case it just doesn't make sense because you can walk around the gates by walking on the row lolol

Originally Posted by waves

Standard buses and curb level boarding will not decrease frequency or speed of the BRT. In other words, they are non-essential issues.

Sliding doors would be nice. I don't really know why this isn't a feature on current articulated buses. Many many routes running those kinds of buses would appreciate sliding doors.

There are two key features that define a BRT:
> Signal Priority
> Exclusive Right of Way 24/7

If people are abusing the bus only HOV, barriers can be put in place.

Also, Rapid transit should not be built to appease developers. It should be built for the best interest of riders.

Transit is always as much about developers as corporations are about shareholders. After all, developers often pay into transit construction. The interurban was so squiggly because of developers (and hilly terrain)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Then they should make a 5-phase El Skytrain system (there shoul. The first phase connects a new Skytrain line, transferring at Surrey Central, and with a small spur to 104 Ave. for Phase 2 (original Study RRT3).

If there's space for LRT, there's space for Elevated Rail, no questions asked.

Not around City Central - the Expo Line's in the way. Can't go over or under, can't twin the stations, can't merge the tracks without reducing frequency AND increasing the chance of another switch breakdown, so you gotta tunnel it.