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

[scryer]

What Vancouver has to start looking at is what Toronto is and many world cities already have.......suburban rail. I know Vancouverites maynot want to hear this but Vancouver is a sprawling city and that will only continue further east as even high income earners leave the city to buy a house and the restraints of the ALR.

I do agree that Vancouver is sprawling. We want to fight it but it's happening, especially with these ridiculous real estate prices. That's just the nature of the beast.

Anyone who thinks Vancouver is a densely populated area has never left the West End.

There are multiple sources that say that Vancouver is the most densely populated city in Canada Do a google search... Although I will agree that in comparison to major cities like New York and Manila, it doesn't hold a candle but.. yeah, it's still the densest in Canada.

Vancouver is a cone shaped urban area arriving at the Vancouver and widening out the further it goes. This makes LRT or SkyTrain a very long trip for anyone going to Vancouver. Vancouver has rail corridors that it doesn't use and these should be turned into a Toronto type GO suburban rail...........all day each way electric train service fro the suburbs to the city.

Two things:

1. The GTA is very widespread. If you were to travel from a place like Burlington to the city centre then you're traveling a distance of approximately 100km whereas travelling from downtown Vancouver to Surrey is ~50km (just to put things into perspective). Toronto even has Go-Train service that goes all the way to Hamilton and Niagara Falls which is well beyond 100km from the T-dot city centre. We are not at that point yet.

2. An hour long commute is very reasonable. To bring this back to Surrey, it is said that a Skytrain extension to Langley City centre would take a commuter ~18 minutes to get to Surrey central, and ~59 minutes to get to downtown Vancouver.

The most obvious first route would be Aldergrove/Langley/Clover/Newton to interchange with SkyTrain at Scott Road and then head downtown with a stop at Broadway and then finish at Waterfront. This would not only give the people SoF a viable way to get downtown but also releive the overcrowded Expo Line.

I like what you're thinking here! However I think that you should reintroduce this idea when Vancouver gets larger and starts aggressively sprawling because of the real-estate industry. We are very fortunate in this city to have an incredible rapid transit network and until we are at the point where we are aggressively sprawling out to Aldergrove and the like, Skytrain will do.

Toronto is doing this by buying the current GO rail lines from CN/CP and adding more trains. By 2025 the entire 250km system will be fully electrfied run a MINIMUM of every 15 minutes each way all day and probably 140 meter trains. The suburban system will run over 6,000 train trips per week

Toronto has approached transit in a very different way than what we have. In the last 15 years we have aggressively extended the Skytrain network to become the longest rapid transit network in Canada whereas Toronto has been extending their Go-Train service to municipalities further out. I compared the Go-Train network to the TTC subway map, and personally, I found the subway map to be underwhelming in comparison to the Go-Train network (of which I found to be extremely impressive!). Also the Go-Trains are significantly more expensive for one-way rides and such.

From my own personal perspective I find that the West Coast Express was built before its time. It goes out to Fraser Valley municipalities like Maple Ridge and Mission at very limited times; and when I see a stronger demand for more frequent service or from residents further away from the Vancity core, that's when I will vouch more for suburban rail.

However at this time, a Skytrain extension to Langley serves the people just fine. Remember, there was a translink study that revealed that most people who live in Langley and Surrey are commuting to Surrey and therefore I'm not too concerned with over-crowded trains. In the near future, I think that the Expo line will have demands for longer platforms to house longer trains anyways.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by scryer

Toronto has approached transit in a very different way than what we have. In the last 15 years we have aggressively extended the Skytrain network to become the longest rapid transit network in Canada whereas Toronto has been extending their Go-Train service to municipalities further out. I compared the Go-Train network to the TTC subway map, and personally, I found the subway map to be underwhelming in comparison to the Go-Train network (of which I found to be extremely impressive!). Also the Go-Trains are significantly more expensive for one-way rides and such.

From my own personal perspective I find that the West Coast Express was built before its time. It goes out to Fraser Valley municipalities like Maple Ridge and Mission at very limited times; and when I see a stronger demand for more frequent service or from residents further away from the Vancity core, that's when I will vouch more for suburban rail.

However at this time, a Skytrain extension to Langley serves the people just fine. Remember, there was a translink study that revealed that most people who live in Langley and Surrey and commuting to Surrey and therefore I'm not too concerned with over-crowded trains. In the near future, I think that the Expo line will have demands for longer platforms to house longer trains anyways.

Indeed 'the core' (CoV) has been given more way transit attention than the rest of the region. I'd like to see that start to change, whether it's bus, Skytrain, or some other variety of rail. It's been kind of the reverse of "if you build it they will come" as there hasn't been a lot of transit options built up outside of CoV so it's no wonder a lot of people there drive...

It's good to hear someone else reminding people that not everyone needs to go to CoV - outside of Richmond and Burnaby many people do not travel there daily, so I'm not worried about extending the Expo Line either. FYI they nixed the idea of extending all the platforms beyond 80m as it would cost stupid amounts of money to do it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Indeed 'the core' (CoV) has been given more way transit attention than the rest of the region. I'd like to see that start to change, whether it's bus, Skytrain, or some other variety of rail. It's been kind of the reverse of "if you build it they will come" as there hasn't been a lot of transit options built up outside of CoV so it's no wonder a lot of people there drive...

1) If you're willing to go WAY back into the other threads, TransLink already ran a study on how much ridership they'd get by increasing frequency. Spoiler alert: it's not enough to pay for the increased expenses. What we've got now is a compromise between service and cost.

2) The "core" gets most of the service because it's, well, the "core;" the densest, most populous area, located in (roughly) the centre of the city - guaranteed ridership. That'll probably change as the suburbs densify... and as Surrey fixes its — hedge maze of a grid. I for one would welcome a B-Line from Richmond to Burnaby or Surrey.

[Metro-One]

Don't want to continue to keep the Education Centre thread off topic so posting here.

Originally Posted by Blease

Just a couple of points:

-Street car style LRTs run perfectly well all over Europe.
-The Surrey LRT will be less susceptible to accidents because it will reduce the number of cars on the road to begin with.
-Dollar per dollar the Surrey LRT will provide more coverage than the Evergreen line.

This really doesn't address the issues I brought up, but here we go:

Your first point is more anecdotal than anything else. Street cars are a disaster in most North American cities and have proven to be more about flavor of the month vanity projects that help developers than supplying a reliable transit service to commuters.

The area of Surrey this line will be servicing will always have substantial vehicle traffic no matter how much transit is in the area, your point does not lessen the severity regarding the points of conflicts. It only takes one idiot driver or one pedestrian (drugged out or listening to his iPod) to get hit and shut down the entire line.

How will this provide more coverage per dollar? From the sources I have seen the first phase alone at 10km long will cost more than the Evergreen Line which is 11km long.

Don't even get me started on phase 2. The connection to Langley is a regional line that must be built as an extension of the Expo Line (the current terminus is already pointed directly in that direction).

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Blease

Just a couple of points:

-Street car style LRTs run perfectly well all over Europe.
-The Surrey LRT will be less susceptible to accidents because it will reduce the number of cars on the road to begin with.
-Dollar per dollar the Surrey LRT will provide more coverage than the Evergreen line.

You're spitting media-generated propaganda and have clearly not looked at the proposed design for how the LRT will integrate within KGB. Educate yourself:

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/issues/

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/vision/brt/

The dude who runs those sites, uses information that has been collected by TRANSLINK! Although he takes a pretty clear point of view, most of the stats are typically local.

Now I'm not saying that LRT is the devil; don't get that twisted . I'm saying that LRT is not right for Surrey. Not at that expense.

[EhJay]

MOU has been agreed on a City counsel in Surrey

Originally Posted by scryer

You're spitting media-generated propaganda and have clearly not looked at the proposed design for how the LRT will integrate within KGB. Educate yourself:

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/issues/

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/vision/brt/

The dude who runs those sites, uses information that has been collected by TRANSLINK! Although he takes a pretty clear point of view, most of the stats are typically local.

Now I'm not saying that LRT is the devil; don't get that twisted . I'm saying that LRT is not right for Surrey. Not at that expense.

Nothing is perfect, nor is anyone going to be happy with every decision.
That being said, been over that site and I don't agree with a lot of it.

Mainly 1) the economic spin-off benefits to the areas around the LRT stations will be greater than at any bus stop and 2) Quotes BRT for one route and SkyTrain for the other to state that it'll be cheaper. To have a fair comparison you'd need SkyTrain down both routes.

However, SkyTrain down Fraser Hwy and LRT for Newton, Central, Guildford would be the best compromise (and most expensive). Best of both worlds!

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by EhJay

MOU has been agreed on a City counsel in Surrey




Nothing is perfect, nor is anyone going to be happy with every decision.
That being said, been over that site and I don't agree with a lot of it.

Mainly 1) the economic spin-off benefits to the areas around the LRT stations will be greater than at any bus stop and 2) Quotes BRT for one route and SkyTrain for the other to state that it'll be cheaper. To have a fair comparison you'd need SkyTrain down both routes.

However, SkyTrain down Fraser Hwy and LRT for Newton, Central, Guildford would be the best compromise (and most expensive). Best of both worlds!

What if they were to trolley-ify the 96B?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by EhJay

Mainly 1) the economic spin-off benefits to the areas around the LRT stations will be greater than at any bus stop and 2) Quotes BRT for one route and SkyTrain for the other to state that it'll be cheaper. To have a fair comparison you'd need SkyTrain down both routes.

1) If economic growth was the primary reason for LRT, then by all means. Alas, said primary reason is people-moving, not development; middle-of-the-road LRT fails miserably in regards to transportation.

2) SkyTrain for Guildford-Newton, as stated, is meant as a separate project to be built a decade or two later. For now, a BRT (or at least a B-Line with 3-5 minute headways like the 99) would do the exact same job as an LRT for considerably less money... and with the ability to switch lanes.
The real comparison would be BRT + RRT + RRT > LRT + LRT + RRT + RRT, because light rail will likely be unable to handle the increased density and end up replaced by SkyTrain anyway.

Originally Posted by EhJay

However, SkyTrain down Fraser Hwy and LRT for Newton, Central, Guildford would be the best compromise (and most expensive). Best of both worlds!

Go back through the thread, and you'll find that the Surrey LRT is actually the worst of both worlds. Build one SkyTrain, then build the other SkyTrain once the money comes along - that's the best option.

[GlassCity]

^It's pretty clear that Surrey's main motive is not to move people, but to market itself as modern and attract development money. Such is the life of the neoliberal city. Light rail has joined the skyscraper in symbolizing a city's modern and urban image. This is unfortunate, because now actually moving people is less of a concern in transit development.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

^It's pretty clear that Surrey's main motive is not to move people, but to market itself as modern and attract development money. Such is the life of the neoliberal city. Light rail has joined the skyscraper in symbolizing a city's modern and urban image. This is unfortunate, because now actually moving people is less of a concern in transit development.

Name me one transit line that was put in place purely to move people, and not for other 'sinister' reasons.

[cganuelas1995]

Can't they just make the 96B stops look like stations and up the frequency/capacity?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Name me one transit line that was put in place purely to move people, and not for other 'sinister' reasons.

I believe that GlassCity's point is that the rule should be "transportation first, growth second;" bad things happen when it's the other way around.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I believe that GlassCity's point is that the rule should be "transportation first, growth second;" bad things happen when it's the other way around.

Exactly. The irony with at-grade LRT is that if it actually does spur development and growth, it will be woefully inadequate to handle the increased demand. If the city was truly planning for the future it would realize that.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I believe that GlassCity's point is that the rule should be "transportation first, growth second;" bad things happen when it's the other way around.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Exactly. The irony with at-grade LRT is that if it actually does spur development and growth, it will be woefully inadequate to handle the increased demand. If the city was truly planning for the future it would realize that.

Why don't they turn the 96B into a true bus-rapid transit (I mean dedicated lane running, centre of the road hogging, off-board fare collecting, — motherfucking true bus-rapid transit that takes notes from the — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRT_Standard and has fancy-— stations and signal priority at intersections)? Would it have the same effect as at-grade LRT when it comes to development and growth?

[Xerx]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Why don't they turn the 96B into a true bus-rapid transit (I mean dedicated lane running, centre of the road hogging, off-board fare collecting, — motherfucking true bus-rapid transit that takes notes from the — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRT_Standard and has fancy-— stations and signal priority at intersections)? Would it have the same effect as at-grade LRT when it comes to development and growth?

My cynical answer would be because rail is seen as nicer, classless, and more sophisticated.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Why don't they turn the 96B into a true bus-rapid transit ... Would it have the same effect as at-grade LRT when it comes to development and growth?

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Yeah. They're nearly the same thing. They both have dedicated lanes, special stations, off-board fare collection, signal treatment. Only difference is vehicle and a bit of extra tech.

And the development is gonna be around the stations anyway, so what difference does it make, growth and development-wise, LRT or BRT?

[ilikeredheads]

because Surrey wants everyone to know they are one of the "cool kids". A bus doesn't have the same visual impact as a tram. Of course, this whole glorified streetcar is a vanity project from the start. They want their stupid photo op and when people realize how overpriced and unreliable it is, they'd be long gone.

I hear those things are awfully loud...

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

because Surrey wants everyone to know they are one of the "cool kids". A bus doesn't have the same visual impact as a tram. Of course, this whole glorified streetcar is a vanity project from the start. They want their stupid photo op and when people realize how overpriced and unreliable it is, they'd be long gone.

I hear those things are awfully loud...

How about making it a trolleybus?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

How about making it a trolleybus?

It's still not as — as rail - and the trolley lines are expensive to install.