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

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

You can go over. The median at King George provides plenty of headway for the Skytrain to go above the Expo Line. It would then turn into the parking lot of Surrey Central Mall (It's a parking lot, I'm sure they won't mind losing a few lots for better transit), before hitting the Surrey Central Station at the other side of City Pkwy (which conveniently has huge sidewalks for the nearby campus!) before tuning onto 104 Ave on another parking lot.

104 Rd near Surrey Central has thin medians, though, so we'd have to say goodbye to the bike paths there probably. Oh well. I'm not shedding tears.

Honestly, though, searching this corridor on Google Earth shows that section has barely enough space for a Skytrain.

Imagine how a 2-lane LRT would fare!

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by fredinno

You can go over. The median at King George provides plenty of headway for the Skytrain to go above the Expo Line. It would then turn into the parking lot of Surrey Central Mall (It's a parking lot, I'm sure they won't mind losing a few lots for better transit), before hitting the Surrey Central Station at the other side of City Pkwy (which conveniently has huge sidewalks for the nearby campus!) before tuning onto 104 Ave on another parking lot.

104 Rd near Surrey Central has thin medians, though, so we'd have to say goodbye to the bike paths there probably. Oh well. I'm not shedding tears.

Honestly, though, searching this corridor on Google Earth shows that section has barely enough space for a Skytrain.

Imagine how a 2-lane LRT would fare!

Ok first you suggested a subway in Langley, come on. Second, though this whole Skytrain idea has numerous flaws imo, there definetly isn't anything stopping you from going over the existing expo line, though the guideway will be incredibly unsightly.

Ok so you replied specifically to my concerns about BRT creep by saying (paraphrase)

Even with creep BRT will be cheaper!

So that means you didn't even take the time to read anything I had said, because BRT creep would make it LESS expensive because you lose features! What was proposed (dedicated lanes with signal priority) doesn't sound like BRT it just sounds like a Busway, and if those lanes are HOV then we basically just have a B Line.

It seems to me like the real issue ends up not being about LRT or BRT but rather just status quo or RT. The whole point of BRT is that it's supposed to basically do everything LRT does but with buses but that means things like level boarding and enhanced vehicles aren't just unimportant factors, they are the difference between true rapid transit and a standard bus line just as much as signal priority is.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by fredinno

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.



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.

Look at how long Broadway will have to wait. The demand there is far higher than anywhere else.

Look up the San Diego Trolley. You can take it to Mexico.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Ok first you suggested a subway in Langley, come on. Second, though this whole Skytrain idea has numerous flaws imo, there definetly isn't anything stopping you from going over the existing expo line, though the guideway will be incredibly unsightly.

Ok so you replied specifically to my concerns about BRT creep by saying (paraphrase)

Even with creep BRT will be cheaper!

So that means you didn't even take the time to read anything I had said, because BRT creep would make it LESS expensive because you lose features! What was proposed (dedicated lanes with signal priority) doesn't sound like BRT it just sounds like a Busway, and if those lanes are HOV then we basically just have a B Line.

It seems to me like the real issue ends up not being about LRT or BRT but rather just status quo or RT. The whole point of BRT is that it's supposed to basically do everything LRT does but with buses but that means things like level boarding and enhanced vehicles aren't just unimportant factors, they are the difference between true rapid transit and a standard bus line just as much as signal priority is.

I should have said without That's probably what I meant- I wasn't paying 100% attention when I wrote that...

But seriously, even without BRT creep Translink still shows it being less than 1/2 the cost. Plenty of room for cost overruns.



And if nothing goes well, just tunnel under the Expo, I guess. It would be a fairly short segment no matter what. Plus, there's room for it in the parking lot.



And what are the flaws in the Skytrain Idea?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

It only takes 1 idiot to ruin the day for everyone.

like this one:

http://www.citynews.ca/2017/02/23/driver-claims-gps-led-streetcar-tunnel-union-station/

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

like this one:

http://www.citynews.ca/2017/02/23/driver-claims-gps-led-streetcar-tunnel-union-station/

Late to the party......

Flaws with the Skytrain idea? Well it's not fast enough, we need some form of RT sooner rather than later and both BRT and LRT would be much faster to construct and fund, and also serve larger areas. Nothing impedes a conversion down the road if it's necessitated.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Late to the party......

Flaws with the Skytrain idea? Well it's not fast enough, we need some form of RT sooner rather than later and both BRT and LRT would be much faster to construct and fund, and also serve larger areas. Nothing impedes a conversion down the road if it's necessitated.

The Newton-Guildford segment (phase 1) could be built fairly quickly- assuming we start today.

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Document...dy_%20Alternatives_Analysis_Findings.pdf

Shows a Skytrain from King George to Langley centre costs $2.22 billion. The Surrey LRT is $2.14 Billion.

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/9/cone-silence-over-cost-estimates-broadway-subway-s/

Admittedly, a lot of that is due to rising real estate prices- but I used the low estimate for the LRT, not the higher one given in the article
My point is that we could build a Skytrain for a (fairly) small amount of extra $$$ as LRT because the Skytrain could be elevated the entire way.

We could cut costs more if we had a RFP for PPP contracts- but making sure this time that we make sure it has sufficient room for future capacity (I'm looking at you, Canada Line).

[bardak]

Transit should be designed to move people not as a development tool. We should care more about getting people from where they are to where they want to go as quickly as possible when planning for rapid transit. Otherwise we might as well cave and just build streetcars down every street like Patrick Condon wants to.

The LRT plan only offers a marginal none essential benefits while spending considerably more compared to the BRT alternative. They both have the same travel time, frequency is dependent on funding but more frequency would be cheaper with buses, and while the capacity would be less for BRT the route is not at risk of being over capacity any time soon.

If we are only concerned about getting something built right away we should go with the skytrain extension to Langley. Elevated guide-ways go up ridiculously fast with modern building techniques. I think it was close to a year from starting the pillars to finishing the guide way for both the Canada line and Evergreen extension.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by bardak

Transit should be designed to move people not as a development tool. We should care more about getting people from where they are to where they want to go as quickly as possible when planning for rapid transit. Otherwise we might as well cave and just build streetcars down every street like Patrick Condon wants to.

The LRT plan only offers a marginal none essential benefits while spending considerably more compared to the BRT alternative. They both have the same travel time, frequency is dependent on funding but more frequency would be cheaper with buses, and while the capacity would be less for BRT the route is not at risk of being over capacity any time soon.

If we are only concerned about getting something built right away we should go with the skytrain extension to Langley. Elevated guide-ways go up ridiculously fast with modern building techniques. I think it was close to a year from starting the pillars to finishing the guide way for both the Canada line and Evergreen extension.

The problem comes back to the fact that you factor in development to the business case of various lines. Some systems like MTR are basically entirely development funded on the capital side and that appears to be where we are moving.... Mind you MTR is the stuff of transit legends....

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The problem comes back to the fact that you factor in development to the business case of various lines. Some systems like MTR are basically entirely development funded on the capital side and that appears to be where we are moving.... Mind you MTR is the stuff of transit legends....

That would be ok if there was a major proposal to do so. While the Mayors council has proposed a limited development charge we would need Translink or the municipalities to buy up swath of land around stations and develop it to get enough money to even make a dent in major capital projects. At the end of the day the structure of our municipal government is not designed to do so and I would be very surprised if there were ever to a proposal to even let them do so.

[logicbomb]

Surprised to see that renders are only being drawn up now, but from what I've heard...the City of Surrey is studying whether or not the line can be single tracked along 104th Avenue with passing tracks being built along wider stretches.

[flipper316]

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

Unfortunately other cities with faregates have issues with people tailgating paying customers. People just jumping over, people just barging right through. To really deter the chronic evaders, losers, and scumbags Transit Police and Translink should really have the power to ban these people from entering transit property. Make it so that transit staff, whether that's Canada Line Attendants, Skytrain Attendants, Bus operators etc, have an idea who is banned on the system and when that person is spotted on transit property that's when Transit Police is called and that person gets kicked out. Make it so much of a hassle for these scumbags that ride for free that they'll eventually figure out "hey I'm not wanted here. better figure my shit out and try to get a valid pass, or just find another way to get around". Kind of like you'll see at liquor stores, gas stations, video pics of shoplifters, assailants etc.
Put Transit police to actual work.

[flipper316]

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.

Technically as much as Surrey and Translink is going to be wasting money with this LRT they are not skipping a step and going straight to the LRT. The 96B line articulated bus which runs from Guildford to Newton, where the L Line is going to run, has been in service since September 2014 I believe.

[Reecemartin]

Single tracking would be a big mistake, especially if it's a long stretch whatsoever, that could seriously impede frequency.

In terms of fare evaders I completely agree, is usually not people who look like they can't afford to pay as well. They should seriously increase fines and a ban would also be a good idea. Obviously being tough on bad behaviour may not be super effective, but these people could be cash cows for the system if we raised fines.

[swimmer_spe]

Look no further than the O Train to see why single track is bad. They cannot do better than 10 minute frequencies.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Look no further than the O Train to see why single track is bad. They cannot do better than 10 minute frequencies.

to be fair, 10 minutes is pretty incredible for a service run with wee little DMU trains. The sensible thing to do in that case is to electrify

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

to be fair, 10 minutes is pretty incredible for a service run with wee little DMU trains. The sensible thing to do in that case is to electrify

Yeah, this type of service is common in places like London and Tokyo. However for them it would be supplementary, not a primary service.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Technically as much as Surrey and Translink is going to be wasting money with this LRT they are not skipping a step and going straight to the LRT. The 96B line articulated bus which runs from Guildford to Newton, where the L Line is going to run, has been in service since September 2014 I believe.

September 2013, to be exact. When they first ran, it was I think 7.5 minute frequency. Then one by one they reduced it to 8.5 minutes.

I think it took closer to 4-5 months to get service to expected capacity.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

to be fair, 10 minutes is pretty incredible for a service run with wee little DMU trains. The sensible thing to do in that case is to electrify

The demand for service is higher than 10 minute frequencies.

They basically put station on an existing single track line. Now they are looking at how to increase the frequency of trains.

So, another reason for Skytrain, double track won't fit.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The demand for service is higher than 10 minute frequencies.

They basically put station on an existing single track line. Now they are looking at how to increase the frequency of trains.

So, another reason for Skytrain, double track won't fit.

Double track will fit fine, they are just concerned with taking space away from cars (Toronto syndrome in full effect, a large job for transit is to get people out of their cars).