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

[Shift]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

There is little opposition because people are not aware of the severe impacts of reducing 104th to a 2 lane road. The 105th ave road is still a hot potato not solved yet.

You have to re-think how 104 will be in the future. It will not be a car-prioritized pseudo-highway like it is today. It will be a transit, bike, and pedestrianized corridor with increased density and an urban street edge. Reducing to 2 lanes is the point.

105 Avenue will be going through. The opposition petition only reached a total 3% of required signatures from electors. It needed 10% to pass. Report heading to council Monday.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Shift

You have to re-think how 104 will be in the future. It will not be a car-prioritized pseudo-highway like it is today. It will be a transit, bike, and pedestrianized corridor with increased density and an urban street edge.

Unless 104th is completely closed off to regular vehicle traffic, that's not going to happen. The average trolley bus is slow and cumbersome enough when there's four lanes, but two lanes, shared with bikes and cars and trucks? Glad I don't live anywhere nearby.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Shift

New site launched for Surrey LRT project:

https://surreylightrail.ca/Benefits

Provides a good overview of the comprehensive vision and benefits of the system for not just moving people, but transforming the corridors it will run along.

I still find it funny how the only idea they can provide that this will "reduce congestion" is that "More people using public transit means fewer vehicles on the road."

Indeed, according to TransLink's Surrey LRT discussion guide, their expectation is that 6x more people will use LRT compared to the 96 B-Line ridership today, despite that the time that you save if you are heading from either town centre to Surrey Central is only one minute compared to existing travel times.

This is supposedly an improvement because the existing B-Line route's end-to-end travel time is (again, this is THEIR numbers) going to degrade to 45 minutes end-to-end by 2045. Yeah, I don't know if anyone else looked at these numbers carefully, but what I'm seeing is numbers that are completely exaggerated, outlandish, and unrealistic. If the future 96 were to actually have these end-to-end travel times, its average speed would be just over 13 km/h, making it the 4th slowest route on the entire transit system - faster than only the 5, the 6, and the 23.

How Surrey expects the 96 to become as slow as a downtown bus route is beyond me. It's not like there aren't any investments you can make, for a fraction of the cost, that would keep this express bus route operating as fast as an express bus route should, right? Like... bus lanes? At this point, Surrey completely negated the existence of Bus Rapid Transit features.

You can see what I'm seeing, right? This entire LRT project is based on lies.

I don't believe for a second that any of the listed outcomes on that "Benefits" page, as vague as they are, will be actually achievable.

[Metro-One]

Wow... that was a lot of fluff.

Seriously, not a single thing mentioned there specifically displays how LRT would be better at any of those benefits than any other form of transit.

In fact it can easily be argued that grade separation can do a better job at nearly all of them.

This project isn't even a transit project anymore, it just a big development scheme.

All previous skytrain lines were about transit first and development second, as any transit project should be, and look at how well countless areas along these lines have densified and developed. (when given the basic zoning and will).

This Surrey LRT is development first, transit second, which is a horrible way to design a transit project.

Also, if the development aspect is such a fundamental point to this project, then why not make the developers fund it?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Wow... that was a lot of fluff.

Seriously, not a single thing mentioned there specifically displays how LRT would be better at any of those benefits than any other form of transit.

In fact it can easily be argued that grade separation can do a better job at nearly all of them.

This project isn't even a transit project anymore, it just a big development scheme.

All previous skytrain lines were about transit first and development second, as any transit project should be, and look at how well countless areas along these lines have densified and developed. (when given the basic zoning and will).

This Surrey LRT is development first, transit second, which is a horrible way to design a transit project.

Also, if the development aspect is such a fundamental point to this project, then why not make the developers fund it?

Unfortunately it seems like this has almost become the dominant reason for building rapid transit projects these days.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Shift

New site launched for Surrey LRT project:

https://surreylightrail.ca/Benefits

Provides a good overview of the comprehensive vision and benefits of the system for not just moving people, but transforming the corridors it will run along.

The comprehensive vision and benefits of moving people one minute faster at the cost of a billion dollars?

I'm sick of governments spending money on transit projects that don't actually improve transit. There's so little money going towards transit improvement, why waste it on projects that don't improve mobility.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Unfortunately it seems like this has almost become the dominant reason for building rapid transit projects these days.

It is the dominant reason to build rubbish light rail projects. Nobody consults the riders, they just decide on a cheap tech and then try to get the ridership onboard.

http://jarrettwalker.com/project/vancouver-bc/

Vancouver is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and a leader in North America for its success at creating a dense, transit-oriented metropolis over the past half-century.

And Surrey wants to throw that away for building a low quality toy train to attract low quality developers.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Shift

You have to re-think how 104 will be in the future. It will not be a car-prioritized pseudo-highway like it is today. It will be a transit, bike, and pedestrianized corridor with increased density and an urban street edge. Reducing to 2 lanes is the point.

105 Avenue will be going through. The opposition petition only reached a total 3% of required signatures from electors. It needed 10% to pass. Report heading to council Monday.

Well, the school board already rejected the 105th ave plan going through the school yard. They want a new school built in order to agree to it. Right now it is all just talk and dreams. Funding isn't even in place for this vanity project.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It is the dominant reason to build rubbish light rail projects. Nobody consults the riders, they just decide on a cheap tech and then try to get the ridership onboard.

http://jarrettwalker.com/project/vancouver-bc/



And Surrey wants to throw that away for building a low quality toy train to attract low quality developers.

It's not even that cheap either. The LRT route (27 km for $2.6 billion) is actually more expensive than SkyTrain's average of $86.9 million/km (2012 dollars).

Source:
http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2012/03/cost-of-skytrain.html

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

It's not even that cheap either. The LRT route (27 km for $2.6 billion) is actually more expensive than SkyTrain's average of $86.9 million/km (2012 dollars).

Source:
http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2012/03/cost-of-skytrain.html

That's not a fair comparison. Construction cost inflation generally runs ahead of general inflation. No one could build, say, the expo line today at the inflation adjusted costs of 1985

[flipper316]

http://www.surreynowleader.com/news/city...d-to-remove-hawthorne-park-from-reserve/

Devastating. Can't believe they actually think it's ok to run a road through a city park. They should be setting aside land for more parks not ruining the current ones. Look at Green Timbers Park.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It is the dominant reason to build rubbish light rail projects. Nobody consults the riders, they just decide on a cheap tech and then try to get the ridership onboard.

http://jarrettwalker.com/project/vancouver-bc/



And Surrey wants to throw that away for building a low quality toy train to attract low quality developers.

Yes but rubbish light rail projects are the hottest thing in North American planning right now.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

That's not a fair comparison. Construction cost inflation generally runs ahead of general inflation. No one could build, say, the expo line today at the inflation adjusted costs of 1985

Point still stands that the cost benefit ratio is no where near as good as the Surrey LRT boosters try to claim that it is. It is not going to be cheap, and it will provide sub-par services compared to our existing train lines.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Point still stands that the cost benefit ratio is no where near as good as the Surrey LRT boosters try to claim that it is. It is not going to be cheap, and it will provide sub-par services compared to our existing train lines.

Fully agree. EVEN IF Surrey LRT is able to generate substantial interest in TOD, there's no guarantee the LRT line would even HAVE the capacity to handle that. They're (again) talking of the Expo Line needing upgrades (this time to 30,000 pphpd), and Surrey LRT said they'd maybe get like 5,600 - which I assume could be pushed to maybe 10,000, as anything more would require grade separation.

[xd_1771]

Some interesting points I gathered from the Socio-Economic Review terms of reference draft on the LRT website:

• Expected opening-day ridership of 36,000 passengers (rather outlandish IMO as the assumption is triple the 96 B-Line right off the bat)
• Expected end-to-end travel time is 27 minutes
• Expected maximum line speed is 50 km/h
• Ultimate system capacity is just 4,080 pphpd
• Reaching ultimate system capacity will require a platform extension to 60m in the future, at extra cost.
• Initial built platform length of 40m, to accomodate 30m trams. If 40m trams become used, max built capacity is around 2700 pphpd.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Some interesting points I gathered from the Socio-Economic Review terms of reference draft on the LRT website:

• Expected opening-day ridership of 36,000 passengers (rather outlandish IMO as the assumption is triple the 96 B-Line right off the bat)
• Expected end-to-end travel time is 27 minutes
• Expected maximum line speed is 50 km/h
• Ultimate system capacity is just 4,080 pphpd
• Reaching ultimate system capacity will require a platform extension to 60m in the future, at extra cost.
• Initial built platform length of 40m, to accomodate 30m trams. If 40m trams become used, max built capacity is around 2700 pphpd.

Didn't the new CEO of Translink recently say that the Canada Line was shortsighted??

If the Canada Line was shortsighted (an automated grade separated metro with a max capacity of 15,000 pphpd) then this project is completely blind.

Really hope he is true to his word and doesn't want to "under build" any new projects...

Seriously, if Surrey really wants Surrey Central to become a "second" downtown core and not just a suburban vertical bedroom community, then shouldn't they be interested into something a little more substantial than this? You know, like a subway or skytrain, like a real downtown

this is why the wise thing to do would be to beef up the 96 B-Line to rapid bus standard, see how ridership grows form there as Surrey Central densifies, and thinking long term have a base plan in place for a subway through the core and have new development make accommodations for such a project.

This is the wise way to approach this, but we all know that civic politics are far from wise.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Some interesting points I gathered from the Socio-Economic Review terms of reference draft on the LRT website:

• Expected opening-day ridership of 36,000 passengers (rather outlandish IMO as the assumption is triple the 96 B-Line right off the bat)
• Expected end-to-end travel time is 27 minutes
• Expected maximum line speed is 50 km/h
• Ultimate system capacity is just 4,080 pphpd
• Reaching ultimate system capacity will require a platform extension to 60m in the future, at extra cost.
• Initial built platform length of 40m, to accomodate 30m trams. If 40m trams become used, max built capacity is around 2700 pphpd.

That's even worse than a street car. A street car with a partially-shared ROW is about 7000 pphpd.

[casper]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The comprehensive vision and benefits of moving people one minute faster at the cost of a billion dollars?

I'm sick of governments spending money on transit projects that don't actually improve transit. There's so little money going towards transit improvement, why waste it on projects that don't improve mobility.

Do you have some examples of government wasting money on transit systems in Western Canada. If anything, I think between Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton it has been under built. To mention that large municipalities that don't have any system.

Back to Surrey. Not having any inside knowledge but just form the outside my read of it the broadway expansion needs to move forward. To gain the political support to do that some money on transit needs to be spent south of the Fraser and this is the project.

If this goes forward, do we know what the impact will be on property development. If the "extra" property development is going to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the cost over the next 15-20 years lets just do it even it make no sense now. If not, then perhaps there is another project south of the Fraser that would be better suited.

Lets face it from a transit perspective is this any better that a trolley bus service in Vancouver. Probably not. Will in encourage the development of a dense downtown core in Surrey? Perhaps.

The original EXPO line was about economic development, transit was secondary. We were well server by it in the end.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by casper

Do you have some examples of government wasting money on transit systems in Western Canada. If anything, I think between Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton it has been under built. To mention that large municipalities that don't have any system.

Back to Surrey. Not having any inside knowledge but just form the outside my read of it the broadway expansion needs to move forward. To gain the political support to do that some money on transit needs to be spent south of the Fraser and this is the project.

If this goes forward, do we know what the impact will be on property development. If the "extra" property development is going to generate sufficient tax revenue to cover the cost over the next 15-20 years lets just do it even it make no sense now. If not, then perhaps there is another project south of the Fraser that would be better suited.

Lets face it from a transit perspective is this any better that a trolley bus service in Vancouver. Probably not. Will in encourage the development of a dense downtown core in Surrey? Perhaps.

The original EXPO line was about economic development, transit was secondary. We were well server by it in the end.

The original Expo Line was still built to the best outcome, so even if transit wasn't it's primary goal, it at least provided an immense improvement based on the speed with which it carried people. People could get between Vancouver and New Westminster much faster after it was built than before.

That's my main issue with Surrey's LRT. It's spending all this money on a line that doesn't get you from Newton to Guildford any faster than now. If they were building a SkyTrain line I would still think it was a bit much for the area, but at least there's a tangible speed benefit over the current B-Line. An LRT doesn't have that.

Of course development is a welcome benefit, but chasing development shouldn't compromise good transit service. The money spent on this LRT could be better distributed to a number of bus corridors and actually expand things that matter like frequency, rather than technology. This will be a net loss to South of Fraser transit service. They complain about not having transit service like Vancouver, but forget that Vancouver depends largely on buses (before the Canada Line it was almost entirely). Buses work, and they have a far greater reach than a single corridor of rail.

[Colin4567]

Even the 99 B Line (120 people per bus at 1 min 30 between buses, or 45 an hour) has a capacity of 5,400...