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

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I mean this should be obviously false? Even if it's only 1 minute faster than the 96 that still would make it faster than a bus that runs express? Have you guys ridden any suburban services?

Not to mention the 96 doesn't have the best lane priority and as far as I know has zero signal priority. I hate how all the anti-lrt people almost resort to Surrey City level hyperbolic rhetoric about why LRT is so bad when in reality it certainly would be faster.

With regards to Portlands LRT it actually is fairly fast as the lights are timed in tune with the train movements, the system also has some significant dedicated ROW. And in terms on success from a development standpoint I think it has been a massive one.

The 96 B-Line isn't a case study in good BRT. It could also have dedicated lanes and signal priorities, for significantly less money than LRT, while still travelling at the same speed and providing more than enough capacity for the foreseeable future. Not to mention, it's more temporary and can be more easily upgraded to SkyTrain if it's needed one day.

Also, Portland's LRT is a product of marketing. Might be the most overhyped transit system out there. The fact that LRT has to run along freeway and rail right-of-ways demonstrates that for it to be useful, it has to travel away from urban corridors.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you make it sound like 1 minute faster is worth 2 billion dollars. in what world is that a good use of dollars? 1 minute faster. lol lol lol. not even worth mentioning. that is the difference between stopping at a red light, or hitting the light green. also, what happens when there is an accident on the road? bus drive around it. what happens when there is an accident on train tracks? trains stop until it is cleared. in BC any accident that is deemed to cost more then $10,000 must have a full investigation so vehicles CANT be moved until that is done; many and many hours.

guess what??!?! 10% of the cost of this LRT, you can build dedicated, signal priority bus-lanes akin to what was down No. 3 Road in Richmond before Canada-Line.

you get a dedicated ROW, less money spent, flexibility around accidents, signal priority.

...and with the money saved on not building the L Line, there's the budget for the Expo Line as Skytrain down Fraser Hwy (which seems to be the way the province is leaning for that line).

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The 96 B-Line isn't a case study in good BRT. It could also have dedicated lanes and signal priorities, for significantly less money than LRT, while still travelling at the same speed and providing more than enough capacity for the foreseeable future. Not to mention, it's more temporary and can be more easily upgraded to SkyTrain if it's needed one day.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Sheba

...and with the money saved on not building the L Line, there's the budget for the Expo Line as Skytrain down Fraser Hwy (which seems to be the way the province is leaning for that line).

Exactly. BRT on the L line and SkyTrain on Fraser Highway ($2.22 billion as per the original study) costs roughly the same as LRT on both ($2.18 billion), but one clearly provides much more significant transportation improvements than the other.

[xd_1771]

To better understand the reason people have become so opposed to the concept of an LRT system in the South of Fraser, my suggestion would be to consider the history of the LRT advocacy movement here in the South of Fraser. The most important thing to know is that the entire South-of-Fraser LRT movement is a product of long-running opposition to SkyTrain.

I don't think there's any question that it's possible for LRT systems to be faster or better and run in dedicated rights-of-way or even in viaducts like our SkyTrain system. However, with the tone of SoF LRT supporters in mind, I set the expectation early on that if an LRT system were to pass and even get this far in the Lower Mainland, we would be getting an LRT system that is pretty much the polar opposite of SkyTrain in functionality, service and impact: Slow, unreliable, and relatively useless as a 'rapid transit' project. And, with the Surrey-Newton-Guildford LRT proposal, that's exactly what we will get.

We're now facing the construction of an LRT system that is so slow that it will be one of the slowest in the country, and barely offers a capacity advantage over B-Line buses and Bus Rapid Transit systems.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I don't think there's any question that it's possible for LRT systems to be faster or better and run in dedicated rights-of-way or even in viaducts like our SkyTrain system.

If we're gonna build the LRT on viaducts, why not build a SkyTrain instead? Why have a third set of vehicles incompatible with the rest of the entire SkyTrain system?

The Canada Line being incompatible with the rest of the SkyTrain was bad enough.

[Sheba]

I was astounded recently when I heard Surrey has been trying to get LRT for 25 years. Wouldn't most people have figured out that if you've been asking for something for that long and haven't got it, that just maybe there's a reason? Scott Road Station opened in 1990 and King George Station opened in 1994 - 25 years ago would have been 1992.

[MIPS]

Now I'm curious as I've never cared for the Surrey end.
Was there always plans for just three more stations after Scott Road, or were there more but early on they scaled back to three because of backlash?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The most important thing to know is that the entire South-of-Fraser LRT movement is a product of long-running opposition to SkyTrain.

Opposition by whom? Surely not by the many, many thousands of people who actually use SkyTrain...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I was astounded recently when I heard Surrey has been trying to get LRT for 25 years. Wouldn't most people have figured out that if you've been asking for something for that long and haven't got it, that just maybe there's a reason? Scott Road Station opened in 1990 and King George Station opened in 1994 - 25 years ago would have been 1992.

.... and in about 10-20 years from now, there will be a Skytrain extension towards Langley.

[GMasterAres]

Recent polls I've seen have had upwards of 80% of respondents supporting SkyTrain over LRT. So not sure where this notion of "LRT support is because of anti-SkyTrain sentiments" is.

Citizens South of Fraser don't quite frankly care about the mode of transit they just want good transit that gets them from point A to B without any major issues. If it doesn't, they'll drive their cars as they have for the past 50+ years. Doesn't matter if it is straight busses, BRT, LRT, SkyTrain, or Hyper Loops. If it takes way longer to transit to work and play than driving, they will drive.

So we should be building what makes sense, is most efficient at moving people for the amount spent, and will last 30+ years. To argue anything else is just arguing politics not facts.

[casper]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Recent polls I've seen have had upwards of 80% of respondents supporting SkyTrain over LRT. So not sure where this notion of "LRT support is because of anti-SkyTrain sentiments" is.

Citizens South of Fraser don't quite frankly care about the mode of transit they just want good transit that gets them from point A to B without any major issues. If it doesn't, they'll drive their cars as they have for the past 50+ years. Doesn't matter if it is straight busses, BRT, LRT, SkyTrain, or Hyper Loops. If it takes way longer to transit to work and play than driving, they will drive.

So we should be building what makes sense, is most efficient at moving people for the amount spent, and will last 30+ years. To argue anything else is just arguing politics not facts.

I suspect if in the same poll you asked residents out of the Fraser (or in Vancouver in general) if they can explain the difference between Skytrain and LRT most would be puzzled by the question.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by casper

I suspect if in the same poll you asked residents out of the Fraser (or in Vancouver in general) if they can explain the difference between Skytrain and LRT most would be puzzled by the question.

I've heard of SkyTrain being referred to as LRT.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I've heard of SkyTrain being referred to as LRT.

Ahh, but SkyTrain is Advanced LRT!

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Now I'm curious as I've never cared for the Surrey end.
Was there always plans for just three more stations after Scott Road, or were there more but early on they scaled back to three because of backlash?

I'd suspect they always planned on extending it down Fraser Hwy - look at google maps and you'll see it already pointed in that direction. But I doubt they did detailed planning (such as station locations) due to how long it would be before it would happen.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Opposition by whom? Surely not by the many, many thousands of people who actually use SkyTrain...

I'm pretty sure he means the pro-SoF-LRT movement are also anti-SoF-Skytrain, and not that everyone SoF is anti-Skytrain.

Originally Posted by jhausner

Recent polls I've seen have had upwards of 80% of respondents supporting SkyTrain over LRT. So not sure where this notion of "LRT support is because of anti-SkyTrain sentiments" is.

Citizens South of Fraser don't quite frankly care about the mode of transit they just want good transit that gets them from point A to B without any major issues. If it doesn't, they'll drive their cars as they have for the past 50+ years. Doesn't matter if it is straight busses, BRT, LRT, SkyTrain, or Hyper Loops. If it takes way longer to transit to work and play than driving, they will drive.

So we should be building what makes sense, is most efficient at moving people for the amount spent, and will last 30+ years. To argue anything else is just arguing politics not facts.

The majority of citizens anywhere don't care that much about the technology - they want something that gets them from points A to B in a reasonable time. In our region if you're not in Vancouver or near a Skytrain station, that pretty much means driving.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I've heard of SkyTrain being referred to as LRT.

When the Skytrain was a "new" thing, it was marketed as "Advanced LRT" because up to that point the only city that had LRT was Calgary. Calgary's system is mostly grade separated. Edmonton's is older by three years and was built for the Commonwealth games along an existing ROW.

Officially the Skytrain is a subway or metro. The fact that it is elevated for significant portions is why the registered trademark is Skytrain. Other cities outside of Canada are essentially free to call their metro's Skytrain and share nothing in common, in the same way other cities call their Metro's "Subway"'s despite not using the same tech of the NYCC Subway.

There are some "nitpick" variants on the term LRT, but for all intents, "LRT" systems trademark feature is that it runs at street level, at street level speeds. Street cars/Trams also do this, but they run in mixed traffic at Bus speeds, have no stations, but the vehicles are identical.

The other side of the term is "Light Metro" which is where a light rail vehicle is used in a Subway style operating environment, which is what Calgary, Ottawa and Seattle's systems would more accurately be described. Basically a "Light Metro" has a dedicated ROW, and signalling mechanics similar to a proper Subway, but uses LRV style thin/short trains.

For all intents, the "Skytrain" quit qualifying as "Light Metro" or "ALRT" when they stopped running them in 2-car configurations. As only the 2-car MK I configuration had a low capacity of a LRT.

However, as I repeatedly have to say everywhere. Every rail system is built-to-order. There is no interchangable parts between any metro system in the world, and as such vehicles built for one system are never transfered to another system, they are simply scrapped. So even though a LRV's and Subway cars may have standard gauge rails, they have different loading gauges, and different platform boarding heights, different third rail systems, and even different handicapped accessibility.

This is why you can never compare two LRT systems and say that one system will be "just like" that other system in costs, performance and maintenance, because it will not.

The leaky condo fiasco was a clear example of the BC government not stepping in early enough to prevent adapting California building code, which was inappropriate for our climate and geography. This is the same problem with LRT's. If we simply copy something from somewhere else, it will inevitably have problems that are caused by overlooking the unique geography and climate here.


Even Portland has made some terrible engineering mistakes with their LRT in respect to the climate, that could have been avoided.

• Video Link

http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/07/why_trimet_automatically_slows.html

TriMet says it's a normal safety precaution. The light-rail system, thy say, was built to run in a mild climate with an average high of 55 degrees. With the temperature expected to hit 98 on Tuesday, riders should expect delays as TriMet reduces train speeds by 10 mph for all areas with a speed limit above 35 mph.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Officially the Skytrain is a subway or metro.

I don't know what authority you need to defer to in these definitions, but I'm familiar with Toronto's subway system, and there's no way that you would confuse one of their subway cars with a Skytrain car. Skytrain is a grade separated automated system with rolling stock sized like a typical LRT system.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Recent polls I've seen have had upwards of 80% of respondents supporting SkyTrain over LRT. So not sure where this notion of "LRT support is because of anti-SkyTrain sentiments" is.

Citizens South of Fraser don't quite frankly care about the mode of transit they just want good transit that gets them from point A to B without any major issues. If it doesn't, they'll drive their cars as they have for the past 50+ years. Doesn't matter if it is straight busses, BRT, LRT, SkyTrain, or Hyper Loops. If it takes way longer to transit to work and play than driving, they will drive.

So we should be building what makes sense, is most efficient at moving people for the amount spent, and will last 30+ years. To argue anything else is just arguing politics not facts.

Just imagine if during the next Municipal election, that this was put to a vote With the simple question of: LRT or Skytrain extension?

I bet most of us here know what would win.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't know what authority you need to defer to in these definitions, but I'm familiar with Toronto's subway system, and there's no way that you would confuse one of their subway cars with a Skytrain car. Skytrain is a grade separated automated system with rolling stock sized like a typical LRT system.

There are no true definitions, they are arbitrary. Is the Waterloo and City line an LRT because it runs dinky little 4 car tube trains?

[GlassCity]

In Vancouver, it seems to me that we use LRT and SkyTrain as shorthand for non-grade separated and grade-separated respectively. I don't think anyone on this forum really cares if the trains are long or short and run on third rail or wires.

[casper]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

In Vancouver, it seems to me that we use LRT and SkyTrain as shorthand for non-grade separated and grade-separated respectively. I don't think anyone on this forum really cares if the trains are long or short and run on third rail or wires.

The language is fussy to some extent.

The Expo and Millenium Line using the "Bombardier Innovia Metro" technology (per Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_Metro). For marketing reasons the technology has had several names, including ALRT.

Other systems that use the system:
- Toronto - Scarborough Line. Some would call it an LRT, perhaps others would question it.
- Detroit People Moved - Uses the same technology. Same thing with the JFK People Mover.
- Three installations in Asia all look to have it as just another line in their Metro system, that happens to use different technology.

I think you need to compare what Surrey is proposing against Skytrain. Trying to generalise it and then do the comparison is a lost cause.