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

[waves]

Originally Posted by Global BC

TransLink’s CEO has acknowledged that the final price tag for a pair of big-ticket transit projects will climb beyond initial estimates.

But Kevin Desmond isn’t ready to say by how much.

On Wednesday, Desmond was quizzed by CKNW’s Steele & Drex about a report from independent journalist Bob Mackin suggesting officials were keeping the lid on known cost increases for a Broadway subway and Surrey light rail transit (LRT).

“Yes, they’re going to be more expensive,” Desmond said.

“When those projects were conceived for the referendum, that’s now three years ago. So you’ve had a change in the value of the Canadian dollar, you’ve had general inflation, land values have gone up a lot. So for both the light rail project and the Millennium Line extension, land values are big part of the price.”

The Broadway subway and the Surrey LRT, along with the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge, are the proposed centrepieces of Phase Two of the Mayors’ Council’s 10-year plan.

When TransLink initially unveiled them in 2014, the cost of the subway was pegged at $1.98 billion, while the LRT project was pegged at $2.14 billion.

Desmond declined to say how much cost estimates had climbed in the three years since then.

“We have draft business cases in to the province right now, and that’s part of their review of the program,” he said.

“Until those business cases are approved and signed off on by the province, we’ll then at that point be able to say what the cost estimates are, because they could change the scope.”

Desmond did, however, admit that the City of Vancouver could end up on the hook for some of the final cost.

Discussions with the city and the Mayors Council are currently underway, he said.

“Will Vancouver make a financial contribution, and how much? That’s a topic of conversation at this point in time,” he said.

The province and the federal government have each committed to pitching in $2.2 billion for the 10-year plan, leaving regional leaders to come up with the remaining 20 per cent of project financing.

Meanwhile, B.C.’s finance minister an increase in costs won’t affect the way the provincial government is approaching transit funding.

“We’ve committed to seeing the mayor’s plan when it comes forward, funding it by 40 per cent,” said Carole James.

But details won’t likely be released until later next year, “It’ll depend on the mayors’ plan, some of that, I’ve heard, may not come forward until the spring,” said James.

She did not weight in on which line she would like to see built first.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3928490/broadway-subway-surrey-lrt-cost/

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

To be honest I worry it would breach some trust, so no names.

But it came straight from the top.

It will be public soon enough.

Did it happen to be a guy wearing an orange vest?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

Did it happen to be a guy wearing an orange vest?

It will be officially announced soon enough. Was hinted at this month but I am personally guessing early next year.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Millennium2002

I'm rather distressed that $2.2 billion of the region's transportation money is being spent on a one-city streetcar with such a poor design...

It's worth mentioning that various investors and slumlords that currently own numerous run-down properties along King George Highway will be reaping immense investment profits from this short-sighted decision...

And while this is being done, what are we doing to the Broadway corridor? Still bursting at the seams, as usual...

This place is becoming a bit of a sick joke, and if I had the choice, I'd be getting my tax dollars out of it.

I assure you no one wants to live next to a LRT line. Its pretty loud. Unless of course they slow it down to 20 kmph then it becomes bearable (that is just above the average speed of LRT where I live as they run in the city). LRT uses extremely heavy vehicles that run metal on metal and frequently break and re accelerate.

[MIPS]

Eh, it's just their little ego trip. Let them build it and stroke off for a few years and let Langley get its SkyTrain with roughed-in station points so in 20 years Surrey can look at those delicious roughed-in locations and then their nasty expensive LRT and make them eat their own words.
Optionally build the line and see how lippy Langley can get.

[khalil1011]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I assure you no one wants to live next to a LRT line. Its pretty loud.

Not really, I have lived in front of the Expo line for 15 years, after its opening and you get used to the noise. Or the house you live in would have soundproof windows/walls. Plus think of the people living in front of Stadium station, I can wave every morning to the person living there

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Confirmed fact or speculation? I don't mean this to be combatative, I'm just genuinely curious. This has been my assumption of what would happen for a while, simply based on the comments made by TransLink that it "will be light rail" as said repeatedly, but that Langley City wants a SkyTrain.

I am not in a position such that I can say confirmed fact, but it is a bit more than speculation. There is just too many politics involved to have the Fraser Highway extension not be SkyTrain regionally.

That said, it is never 100% sure, look at the George Massey Tunnel bridge. It was a done deal then a crazy election and pause. I still think it will go ahead eventually, but when politics are involved nothing is ever for sure nor are decisions made that are always for the best of the region.

[flipper316]

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/surre...tract-for-bear-creek-bridge-replacement/

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by flipper316

https://www.peacearchnews.com/news/surre...tract-for-bear-creek-bridge-replacement/

"A timber trestle bridge built in the the 1930s". Lmao I feel as though this thing should be replaced regardless of light rail

[waves]

Just because it's timber doesn't mean that its past it's lifespan. Many of the New Brunswick covered bridges have been standing for 120+ years

[MIPS]

That photograph makes Hepner look fatter than she is.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

"A timber trestle bridge built in the the 1930s". Lmao I feel as though this thing should be replaced regardless of light rail

Here is an important statement from Desmond...

“We are pleased to see that the city is moving forward to get ready for the anticipated LRT once funding is secured for the project,” he said.

My question is: Secured from whom and from where???

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by waves

Just because it's timber doesn't mean that its past it's lifespan. Many of the New Brunswick covered bridges have been standing for 120+ years

We are considerably more soggy than NB. It's kind of horrifying that bridge is still in use.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Here is an important statement from Desmond...

“We are pleased to see that the city is moving forward to get ready for the anticipated LRT once funding is secured for the project,” he said.

My question is: Secured from whom and from where???

As far as I know, the feds and the province made their funding conditional on a good business case. The business cases are under review so as soon as they get the green light from the higher levels the funding is secured.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Pinion

We are considerably more soggy than NB. It's kind of horrifying that bridge is still in use.

What's horrifying is that you are deciding that the bridge is timber and therefore horrifying. Just an estimation from the picture, but my guess is that you could fix up this bridge for $100,000 to $200,000 rather than replace the entire thing for $5 million.

All of these bridges are treated for water protection. So long as proper maintenance is done on them they will last longer than concrete. You get one bad engineer who doesn't know what they are doing and they can wreck a perfectly fine bridge in just 8 years. "It is what we do to wood structures that causes their premature failures"

The photo below tells us a few things:

1. Moss is growing on the piles: This means that they likely have questionable water treatment.
2. Piles are topped by a beam with no visible horizontal connection implying that there is a vertical connection. This is bad because it lets water into the center of the pile. These connections can be fixed, and testing can be done to determine where these piles have cavities and might need salt sticks, wrapping or straight replacement with a properly designed pile.
3. Cross beams on the piles and railings are properly connected to the structure via horizontal fasteners.
4. Deck beams appear to have less moss and the blackish look typical of a kreosote water protection coating. This means that likely the deck and beams are in good condition and likely don't need replacing.

This is however only just from one photo. To really determine the structural stability of the bridge one would have to do an on site inspection. The piles for sure look like they might be a problem, but it's not one that can't be fixed.

The below is an excerpt on the ways we need to change our practice towards how we look after wood bridges:

Originally Posted by pg117

• Change Vertical through bolting to horizontal bolting, verticals that
don’t pass through the upper surface.
• Stop the use of malthoid barrier.
• Insure positive drainage that does not fall onto structural elements.
• Provide for moisture content change induced dimensional change in
timber elements (e.g. oval side plates)
• Stop the use of banding
• Stop the use of near end drift pinning in an attempt to stop end
feathering
• Provide proper clearance for breathing of timber elements
• Stop the use of heavy percentage solids coatings (over 29% solids)
• Stop the use of heavy notching
• Use proper sized timbers in pile bents and place loads within D of
pile to prevent micro-checking (horizontal shear cracking) in undersized cross heads

http://wood-works.ca/wp-content/uploads/The-Revival-of-Timber-Bridges.pdf

[Pinion]

I'm not anti-wood construction, but I sure as hell don't want to drive over that.

[sunsetmountainland]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I'm not anti-wood construction, but I sure as hell don't want to drive over that.

Dude the reality is the more you speak! The more people think you are really stupid!



Just my opinion!

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

As far as I know, the feds and the province made their funding conditional on a good business case. The business cases are under review so as soon as they get the green light from the higher levels the funding is secured.

However, the feds and province are only putting 40% each. Where is the remaining 20% coming from?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

As far as I know, the feds and the province made their funding conditional on a good business case. The business cases are under review so as soon as they get the green light from the higher levels the funding is secured.

Yeah, but based on what Metro One's saying it sounds like a done deal. I dream of the business case getting rejected with "build SkyTrain" being the response, but the way everything's going it sure doesn't look like that's where it's headed.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

However, the feds and province are only putting 40% each. Where is the remaining 20% coming from?

This is where the Mayor's Council is stuck and needs to approve new financing. Along with the rest of Phase 1 (5 new B-Lines, for example), the 20% for Phase 2 is currently being sought, with development fees approved, and a share of the provincial carbon tax revenues and the Mobility Pricing currently being explored to supplement this. Based on what's been said it looks like this will be approved in Spring with the Mayors' Plan finalizing Phase 2.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah, but based on what Metro One's saying it sounds like a done deal. I dream of the business case getting rejected with "build SkyTrain" being the response, but the way everything's going it sure doesn't look like that's where it's headed.

I do too! Surrey voted pretty overwhelmingly NDP so they have to tread carefully here. Often the problem with politics (with ANY party) is that it's not always about doing what's right, but instead about being re-elected.