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

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In addition as was mentioned losing some car lanes isn't a huge deal increased capacity induces demand and in the long run we want less people driving anyways


In the end if the LRT ends up facing all these problems that are being suggested which do range from warranted to vastly excessive then solutions will be implemented, that could be anything from traffic restrictions to grade separations at key intersections...

You have more faith in this than I do. Surrey has been pushing an on-ground rail line mixed in with traffic. They'll fight against paying more than the barest minimum for it.

King George can afford to lose some car lanes but 104th can't - and this is Surrey we're talking about, not Vancouver. Vancouver gets a frequent grid network across it's city vs Surrey is stuck with mostly infrequent north - south routes. In many cases people in Surrey have to drive to get where they're going.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The fact that is LRT implies signal priority...
In addition as was mentioned losing some car lanes isn't a huge deal increased capacity induces demand and in the long run we want less people driving anyways
Saying that it's going to ruin Surrey is excessive even if you don't like LRT at all, we all know that the Expo Line is going to be extended down Fraser and that the cost of building Skytrain vs LRT on the L corridor is much higher because obviously skytrain is another class of transit which require significant grade separation etc...

Problem 1: Transit will never completely replace the car. Even without buses, trucks, vans, service vehicles, emergency vehicles and others, you'll always have some people with kids or groceries or something else who'll end up driving instead of riding.

That, plus King George and 104th being two of Surrey's more critical arterials - especially with the current piss-poor road grid - means that both need as many lanes as possible; getting rid of two lanes and banning left turns hinders that. Same reason why TransLink shot down the Broadway LRT - nobody wants that kind of gridlock.

Problem 2: In order to replace the unnecessary cars, you need to replace the convenience that the car provides... or at least be a better option than the trolley bus. And this plan isn't. Less bumpy, for sure, but it's not over or under the road, or even beside the road - it's right down the middle!

That means that regardless of the median or the signal priority, it has to drive slower, and ultimately ends up only five minutes faster than a bus ride; that, plus the estimated six minute frequency, means Surrey is essentially blowing billions on an express bus that can't switch lanes. For a fraction of that money, they could upgrade existing 96 B-Line to Vancouver standards (3-5 minute headways at rush hour), which would do the same thing.

Scroll back up the Arbutus thread, and you'll see many posters against Surrey LRT supporting Arbutus LRT. They're not against light rail, they just understand that the last thing a high-traffic road needs is an overexpensive bus that inhibits said high traffic.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In the end if the LRT ends up facing all these problems that are being suggested which do range from warranted to vastly excessive then solutions will be implemented, that could be anything from traffic restrictions to grade separations at key intersections... as Ive mentioned before it's probably best that people start advocating for the best possible LRT implementation...

That would be the best solution - tunneled through Whalley (at least at the arterials), just like with Eglinton.

Whiiiiich leads to Problem 3: tunnelling also drives costs up, making it just as expensive as the SkyTrain option and defeating the entire purpose of building an at-grade line. Unfortunately, there really is no way to make this thing work the way Surrey City Council wants it to work.

[ilikeredheads]

I don't know how many times I've said it but what Surrey City Council is proposing is a streetcar that provides none of the benefits an actual LRT would provide, while at the same time has plenty of drawbacks.

- completely at-grade crossings at dozens of major corridors
- non grade separation means it is vulnerable to road traffic. Also offer almost no time savings compared to existing 96 B line.
- forcibly reduce road capacity on 104th by half, which is major east-west artery.
- all bus routes that run along 104th will have to be rerouted due to reduction of road space. This will inconvenience commuters as they have to make another transfer.

One of the major sales point Surrey has been making is that their plan is cheaper than Skytrain, which is why there is zero grade separation. If you want a properly designed system with overpass or tunnels, then costs will go up. In the end LRT isn't as cheap as they claim to be.

Another reason why I'm against this "LRT" is that operational cost will be expensive. This is something Surrey City Council conveniently chose to ignore. This is an entirely new infrastructure that Translink is forced to operate and maintain. New depot, new tracks, new trains, new wires. This is unnecessary financial burden for Translink when they are already tight in funding. Should Surrey be 100% responsible for the operational cost? of course, but it won't happen.

I'm not against LRT. It can work if it's done properly (like Calgary). However, in Surrey's case it is a poorly thought out plan that is being pushed for political reasons and does not benefit commuters.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

I don't know how many times I've said it but what Surrey City Council is proposing is a streetcar that provides none of the benefits an actual LRT would provide, while at the same time has plenty of drawbacks.

- completely at-grade crossings at dozens of major corridors
- non grade separation means it is vulnerable to road traffic. Also offer almost no time savings compared to existing 96 B line.
- forcibly reduce road capacity on 104th by half, which is major east-west artery.
- all bus routes that run along 104th will have to be rerouted due to reduction of road space. This will inconvenience commuters as they have to make another transfer.

One of the major sales point Surrey has been making is that their plan is cheaper than Skytrain, which is why there is zero grade separation. If you want a properly designed system with overpass or tunnels, then costs will go up. In the end LRT isn't as cheap as they claim to be.

Another reason why I'm against this "LRT" is that operational cost will be expensive. This is something Surrey City Council conveniently chose to ignore. This is an entirely new infrastructure that Translink is forced to operate and maintain. New depot, new tracks, new trains, new wires. This is unnecessary financial burden for Translink when they are already tight in funding. Should Surrey be 100% responsible for the operational cost? of course, but it won't happen.

I'm not against LRT. It can work if it's done properly (like Calgary). However, in Surrey's case it is a poorly thought out plan that is being pushed for political reasons and does not benefit commuters.

Let's not forget its gonna require new people to drive the trains. More money on wages training and of course the human error factor.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Problem 1: Transit will never completely replace the car. Even without buses, trucks, vans, service vehicles, emergency vehicles and others, you'll always have some people with kids or groceries or something else who'll end up driving instead of riding.

That, plus King George and 104th being two of Surrey's more critical arterials - especially with the current piss-poor road grid - means that both need as many lanes as possible; getting rid of two lanes and banning left turns hinders that. Same reason why TransLink shot down the Broadway LRT - nobody wants that kind of gridlock.

Problem 2: In order to replace the unnecessary cars, you need to replace the convenience that the car provides... or at least be a better option than the trolley bus. And this plan isn't. Less bumpy, for sure, but it's not over or under the road, or even beside the road - it's right down the middle!

That means that regardless of the median or the signal priority, it has to drive slower, and ultimately ends up only five minutes faster than a bus ride; that, plus the estimated six minute frequency, means Surrey is essentially blowing billions on an express bus that can't switch lanes. For a fraction of that money, they could upgrade existing 96 B-Line to Vancouver standards (3-5 minute headways at rush hour), which would do the same thing.

Scroll back up the Arbutus thread, and you'll see many posters against Surrey LRT supporting Arbutus LRT. They're not against light rail, they just understand that the last thing a high-traffic road needs is an overexpensive bus that inhibits said high traffic.



That would be the best solution - tunneled through Whalley (at least at the arterials), just like with Eglinton.

Whiiiiich leads to Problem 3: tunnelling also drives costs up, making it just as expensive as the SkyTrain option and defeating the entire purpose of building an at-grade line. Unfortunately, there really is no way to make this thing work the way Surrey City Council wants it to work.

First I think it's worth noting that tunneling or elevating one section, does not make the cost even near to the same as a fully grade separated line, just closer.
I think alot of the reasons you gave for flaws in LRT are completely reasonable, however speed for example is not as big of an issue, speeds can be fairly high and with signal priority that shouldn't be a big issue.

The main difference between the LRT and buses is permanence no matter how you frame it putting rails into the group establishes permanence on a level that it doesn't exist on for buses even with good BRT implementations. This permanence helps draw development and is the reason so many US cities are putting in streetcars, simply as cheap ways to spur development.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The main difference between the LRT and buses is permanence no matter how you frame it putting rails into the group establishes permanence on a level that it doesn't exist on for buses even with good BRT implementations. This permanence helps draw development and is the reason so many US cities are putting in streetcars, simply as cheap ways to spur development.

Only in that doesn't matter because we already know rails are not permanent in BC as the original streetcar lines were ripped up and replaced with trolley-buses, and the interurban between Vancouver and New West was ripped up over time once the Skytrain was built, and the Arbutus ROW has had it's rails ripped up, and similar Rail lines have been ripped up in Richmond, and also in Victoria.

My optimistic bet is that either this LRT project gets scrapped due to further meddling by Surrey, and the people responsible for the project just do not give a care any more and walk away from it. Or it gets downgraded to a BRT (probably the 104 segment) due to being unable to acquire the properties, or the First Nations people protest the eminent domain that will be required to widen it.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Only in that doesn't matter because we already know rails are not permanent in BC as the original streetcar lines were ripped up and replaced with trolley-buses, and the interurban between Vancouver and New West was ripped up over time once the Skytrain was built, and the Arbutus ROW has had it's rails ripped up, and similar Rail lines have been ripped up in Richmond, and also in Victoria.

My optimistic bet is that either this LRT project gets scrapped due to further meddling by Surrey, and the people responsible for the project just do not give a care any more and walk away from it. Or it gets downgraded to a BRT (probably the 104 segment) due to being unable to acquire the properties, or the First Nations people protest the eminent domain that will be required to widen it.

There's a big difference between the removal of the interurbans and a modern LRT, I seriously doubt with contemporary urban planning we are ever going to have another automobile revolution. Especiallyin Canada it appears the future is dense communities built on transit lines.

Alot of people seem to think that this project will die but, I think that's quite unlikely. Not only is the city very much working to get it stared ASAP, but in addition I don't think the public as a whole looks at it very negatively the same way it is on this forum whether or not you think that it's a bad plan.

Hopefully when construction begins there can be more interesting discussions on the thread about the actual line and the interesting details of what it will actually look like and less "LRT is a fancy streetcar and it's going to ruin/will never work in Surrey rhetoric" I can appreciate the issues with LRT Id never argue street running transit holds a candle to Skytrain, I just don't take the common position on this forum that their is some middle ground between a total success and an outright catastrophe. Since Ive been convinced for a long time that this line would end up being LRT, I've let go most of my criticisms seeing the range of LRT's possible since moving to Ontario (look at the difference between the O Train which is similar in train length and grade separation to Skytrain and will run with CBTC, and Waterloo ION which is more of a tram train streetcar hybrid).

Ultimately I hope in the likely case that this line goes ahead we can pivot all the passion towards going to community meetings etc and demanding the system be the best it can be, that's in the publics best interest, and clearly most people reading this forum have numerous ideas on how to improve most transit systems.

[waves]

Kevin Desmond and Hepner have both said that they are looking at both LRT and Skytrain options. The comments are sparce and far between but they are there.

It's important here to note that nothing has actually been decided yet so it's utter stupidity to throw your hands up in the air and advocate for what is clearly the worst choice.

A politician's mind will not change if you don't show them that you don't support them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by towerseeker101

Perhaps they should ramp up service on the 84 bus line to take some bus traffic away from Broadway.

84 is already very frequent (5 min?), and sometimes standing room only or full during rush hour.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Only in that doesn't matter because we already know rails are not permanent in BC as the original streetcar lines were ripped up and replaced with trolley-buses, and the interurban between Vancouver and New West was ripped up over time once the Skytrain was built, and the Arbutus ROW has had it's rails ripped up, and similar Rail lines have been ripped up in Richmond, and also in Victoria.

My optimistic bet is that either this LRT project gets scrapped due to further meddling by Surrey, and the people responsible for the project just do not give a care any more and walk away from it. Or it gets downgraded to a BRT (probably the 104 segment) due to being unable to acquire the properties, or the First Nations people protest the eminent domain that will be required to widen it.

I think the days of ripping up urban rail is coming to an end in North America. The public has wised up and would stop it. Even the E&N likely will be refurbished.

A Skytrain and LRT line could exist on the same ROW if the demand is there. The only good thing is, if the LRT is built first, then adding a Skytrain would only add to the corridor's appeal.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

I don't know how many times I've said it but what Surrey City Council is proposing is a streetcar that provides none of the benefits an actual LRT would provide, while at the same time has plenty of drawbacks.

- completely at-grade crossings at dozens of major corridors
- non grade separation means it is vulnerable to road traffic. Also offer almost no time savings compared to existing 96 B line.

This is major concern as well, but we're going to have to wait for the engineering documents on this one. I can't see a situation in which KG and 88th, for example, have a level crossing.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

84 is already very frequent (5 min?), and sometimes standing room only or full during rush hour.

Why can't they run artics on the 84?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

84 is already very frequent (5 min?), and sometimes standing room only or full during rush hour.

Technically, every 6-7 minutes; dies down to 12 at midday and 20 at night, and that's assuming they don't bunch up. So there's a bit of room for improvement.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

First I think it's worth noting that tunneling or elevating one section, does not make the cost even near to the same as a fully grade separated line, just closer.
I think alot of the reasons you gave for flaws in LRT are completely reasonable, however speed for example is not as big of an issue, speeds can be fairly high and with signal priority that shouldn't be a big issue.

The main difference between the LRT and buses is permanence no matter how you frame it putting rails into the group establishes permanence on a level that it doesn't exist on for buses even with good BRT implementations. This permanence helps draw development and is the reason so many US cities are putting in streetcars, simply as cheap ways to spur development.

The Evergreen line was around 100 mill per km. This Surrey street car line is shaping up to be MORE expensive then grade separated skytrain. LRT is not cheaper then skytrain unless you already have a very good ROW to work with.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The Evergreen line was around 100 mill per km. This Surrey street car line is shaping up to be MORE expensive then grade separated skytrain. LRT is not cheaper then skytrain unless you already have a very good ROW to work with.

I don't know what the point of calling it a streetcar is it isn't running in mixed traffic, and it's just dishonest. Streetcars typically don't have multiple cars, signal priority, or dedicated ROWs.

I'd like to see an actual analysis that shows that building Skytrain track is less expensive, not just a rough number that is getting thrown around. There's lots of varied costs to consider, and suggesting that a fully grade separated line is less expensive than cantenary poles and embedded tracks is a very bold claim to make and if that was the case Id question why any city would ever build LRT (most cities also have to widen streets etc during construction)

In reference to Waves comment, hepner was specifically referring to the line to Langley in those comments, extending the Expo Line down KGB makes a lot less sense.

[BCPhil]

Here is how I think it will play out:

1. A consulting report will come back and determine that removing lanes from 104 ave for LRT will do more economic harm than good. While LRT will be great for Guildford, a lot of traffic on 104 originates from further East, and they won't benefit from the line.

2. There will be further complaints raised about routing that traffic to 100 and 105A connector. Surrey First will become worried about losing the election due to traffic through neighborhoods due to rerouting and construction.

3. They will propose to build the LRT along 104 elevated (at least in parts), much like what is being done in South Seattle. Seattle built an elevated 2.6km extension to Angle Lake for under $380 million (US). King George to 150 Ave is 2.8 km.

King George will stay at grade, but pains will be taken to maintain 4 existing traffic flow.

4. Construction will be so expensive and/or such a pain to residents, that Surrey First will lose re-election.

5. When it comes to transit to Langley, Skytrain will be the obvious choice.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't know what the point of calling it a streetcar is it isn't running in mixed traffic, and it's just dishonest. Streetcars typically don't have multiple cars, signal priority, or dedicated ROWs.

Because while the Old World separates trams/LRT (in priority ROWs) from streetcars (in traffic), North Americans use all three interchangeably, and Asian LRT is mostly elevated. Attempting to make a distinction usually leads to much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'd like to see an actual analysis that shows that building Skytrain track is less expensive, not just a rough number that is getting thrown around. There's lots of varied costs to consider, and suggesting that a fully grade separated line is less expensive than cantenary poles and embedded tracks is a very bold claim to make...

Remember that LRT is only cheaper when you've got an empty ROW to lay track on; ripping up an existing road, building a median, then laying track drives the cost up. TransLink's own study gives an estimate of $1.68-2.18 billion for LRT, as opposed to $2.22 billion for SkyTrain and BRT. So at best, TransLink "saves" $540 million.

And the budget for the LRT plan just climbed to $2.6 billion. I understand the SkyTrain would have cost overruns too, but the fact remains that the LRT option, even without grade-separation at major crossings, is now MORE expensive than the SkyTrain option!

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

and if that was the case Id question why any city would ever build LRT (most cities also have to widen streets etc during construction)

Because in the States, where most light rail projects are, transit funding is "use it or lose it" - you either spend what you have now, or it goes back to the feds. Saving up for a proper el-rail or subway usually isn't an option.

[seamack]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Alot of people seem to think that this project will die but, I think that's quite unlikely. Not only is the city very much working to get it stared ASAP, but in addition I don't think the public as a whole looks at it very negatively the same way it is on this forum whether or not you think that it's a bad plan.

I think the city is very much working to get LRT started ASAP to save Hepner's own hide... she's the one who said upon election in 2014 that it would be built and operational by 2018, despite the result of the transit plebiscite and with or without provincial funding. Well, she's now got both federal and provincial committed funding, yet still there's no shovel in the ground. Ironically, if the shovels start before next years municipal election, she's going to feel the wrath of Surrey motorists once they experience the chaos and gridlock on 104 and KG. She is also hearing it from environmentalists with the disgrace of what is happening with Green Timbers Park courtesy of the city which was formally called the 'City of Parks'. This is a no-win situation and she is unlikely to be re-elected... as more of the public become aware of what a boondoggle this so-called transportation vision is, there will be even further criticism.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by seamack

I think the city is very much working to get LRT started ASAP to save Hepner's own hide... she's the one who said upon election in 2014 that it would be built and operational by 2018, despite the result of the transit plebiscite and with or without provincial funding. Well, she's now got both federal and provincial committed funding, yet still there's no shovel in the ground. Ironically, if the shovels start before next years municipal election, she's going to feel the wrath of Surrey motorists once they experience the chaos and gridlock on 104 and KG. She is also hearing it from environmentalists with the disgrace of what is happening with Green Timbers Park courtesy of the city which was formally called the 'City of Parks'. This is a no-win situation and she is unlikely to be re-elected... as more of the public become aware of what a boondoggle this so-called transportation vision is, there will be even further criticism.

I think its a fairly major exaggeration to suggest that Hepner will not be re elected due to this. Though it was indeed pretty stupid to make a promise like that that she knew she scoudlnt keep.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

3. They will propose to build the LRT along 104 elevated (at least in parts), much like what is being done in South Seattle. Seattle built an elevated 2.6km extension to Angle Lake for under $380 million (US). King George to 150 Ave is 2.8 km.

King George will stay at grade, but pains will be taken to maintain 4 existing traffic flow.

With the geography it makes more sense to have King George elevated (it's relatively flat - the dip in the middle of the route wouldn't be an issue) and have 104th tunnelled. Height about sea level at the intersections along 104th:

King George: 85m
Whalley Blvd: 95m
140th: 109m
144th: 110m
148th: 100m
150th: 96m

Of course it'll cost too much so it won't happen.