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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Something of interest from the King George Hub ad circulating through the papers.

You can bet the farm that if both lines were a done deal, the developers would be first in line to know it.... but while the Newton-Guildford line is marked as an "LRT Station," Fraser Highway-Langley is still up in the air.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Something of interest from the King George Hub ad circulating through the papers.

You can bet the farm that if both lines were a done deal, the developers would be first in line to know it.... but while the Newton-Guildford line is marked as an "LRT Station," Fraser Highway-Langley is still up in the air.

Business Vancouver

Surrey's Light Rail Long Game

Vancouver British Columbia - When it comes to promised transportation infrastructure projects, no community has been in the queue longer than Surrey.

The city has been waiting for a final green light for its proposed Light Rail Transit (LRT) line from the new provincial government in conjunction with federal funding, but the project has already gone through years of reviews, planning, and consultations, much to the dismay of the local community.

The Surrey LRT line, a two-phase project similar to Vancouver's Broadway subway line extension, was initially pitched by Dianne Watts before she became Surrey's mayor in 2005.

Public consultation on the process has been going on since 2010, however, a segment of the community, which now officially includes Langley city council, is campaigning for a SkyTrain line extension instead of LRT, southeast along the Fraser Highway.

One of the communities that will benefit the most from the first proposed line, which would run south from Surrey Central to 72nd Avenue along the King George corridor, is Newton.

Philip Aguirre, executive director of the Newton Business Improvement Association, noted that the community's growing population requires better transportation options.

"Newton is the fifth-largest community in B.C.," Aguirre said.

"It's bigger than Kelowna, it's bigger than Langley, and a community that size deserves and needs LRT."

Newton's population is about 146,000, and the area accounts for 33 percent of Surrey's overall business community, according to the association.

Aguirre said an LRT line would help turn Newton into a cultural and entertainment district for the whole city.

He's also well aware of the business problems stemming from construction of the SkyTrain Canada Line along Cambie Street and how prolonged construction might affect Newton.

Aguirre said planning is underway to rally the community around businesses that might be negatively affected by work on the project.

He recalls when the idea of expanding the original SkyTrain line (which currently stops where King George Boulevard and the Fraser Highway connect) was initially pitched in 1994.

"The result of all of that is all the vacant lots in the area. Developers are still waiting to cash in on that investment. I'm still trying to be positive about it, but obviously, I think the community would be devastated if the SkyTrain went to Langley first."

Anita Huberman, chief executive officer of the Surrey Board of Trade, recently met with Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Claire Trevena about Surrey's proposed LRT line.

Huberman pitched an ambitious idea, build both LRT lines simultaneously, all 27 kilometres and 19 stops, after breaking ground on the project in early 2019.

Huberman added she expects to hear back from the provincial government before the 2018 provincial budget is announced in February.

She said the Surrey Board of Trade has also launched an education campaign to combat the idea that running the SkyTrain line to Langley instead of building two LRT lines is the best option for the Fraser Valley's transportation needs.

Paul Lee, LRT program manager for the City of Surrey, said one of the other LRT lines the city will seek to emulate in some ways is Portland Oregon's Metropolitan Area Express.

Lee said a city delegation went to Portland in 2011, and he has made numerous trips to the area to study it before and since.

"It is the system that would have the most similarities concerning what we would like to build," he said.

"Portland continues to build something we call urban-style light rail, which is low-floor and runs in the middle of the roadway and is a real catalyst for transit-orientated development, mixed-use development, and so forth."

Ridership has almost doubled on Portland's light-rail system from 2000 (17,65 million originating riders) to 2017, when it had 31,67 million riders.

Portland has a population of 639,863 people as of 2016, compared with Surrey's 525,220.

Portland's system has five lines with 97 stations.

It started with two short lines back in the late 1980s.

Lee also noted there are 12 tentatively federally funded projects in various stages of development for light rapid transit across Canada, including eight in Ontario, two in Edmonton, and one in Calgary, and that they are all "low-floor" and not raised like Vancouver's SkyTrain network.

Patrick Blennerhassett.

I say build Skytrain to Langley to connect with the existing Expo Line. I live in north Surrey and am totally against any LRT but if they are pushing it, leave it at phase one.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Business Vancouver

Surrey's Light Rail Long Game

Huberman added she expects to hear back from the provincial government before the 2018 provincial budget is announced in February.

She said the Surrey Board of Trade has also launched an education campaign to combat the idea that running the SkyTrain line to Langley instead of building two LRT lines is the best option for the Fraser Valley's transportation needs.

Ridership has almost doubled on Portland's light-rail system from 2000 (17,65 million originating riders) to 2017, when it had 31,67 million riders.

Portland has a population of 639,863 people as of 2016, compared with Surrey's 525,220.

Portland's system has five lines with 97 stations.

It started with two short lines back in the late 1980s.

so in 2016 SkyTrain had 137.4 million passengers at 53 stations and in 2017 Portland had 31.67 million passengers from 97 stations.

both systems are off approximately the same age, from the 80s.

so why are we trying to emulate something that is worse then what we built? I'm confused why we would want to do this. someone please explain it to me,

thanks.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

so in 2016 SkyTrain had 137.4 million passengers at 53 stations and in 2017 Portland had 31.67 million passengers from 97 stations.

both systems are off approximately the same age, from the 80s.

so why are we trying to emulate something that is worse then what we built? I'm confused why we would want to do this. someone please explain it to me,

thanks.

Typical manipulation. What they're not telling you (I've compiled actual numbers on this) is that the Portland system has cost $4 billion so far using inflation - not CONSTRUCTION inflation indexes, which would give an even higher number (probably close to $6 billion) or that for many of the lines, one train comes every 15 minutes. Even during rush hour when I was there not a lot of people were on the trains, and speeds were typically about 35 km/h or so outside of the downtown core and about 8 km/h in the core. In other words, outside of the core its slower than SkyTrain (which has an average speed of 45 km/h) and it's even worse in the core. I can't see how this is a positive model for Surrey.

[ilikeredheads]

I've said this numerous times. This is a glorified streetcar. Calling it "light rail" is just fancy marketing to give an illusion that it is better than it is. It's a vanity project and a poorly thought-out, expensive system. We are not in the 1930s anymore. Considering today's traffic volume, you can't just plot down a streetcar down along your main arteries and expect things will be fine.

It's sad that a municipality is able to bully its way into pushing this farce with Translink being set up as the scapegoat once again.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by cornholio

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.

I totally see the flaws in the proposeal versus BRT or Skytrain but I hate this kind of talk. Unless the trains are cornering they really will not be that loud so thi is really just a hyperbolic anti lrt statement.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

I've said this numerous times. This is a glorified streetcar. Calling it "light rail" is just fancy marketing to give an illusion that it is better than it is. It's a vanity project and a poorly thought-out, expensive system. We are not in the 1930s anymore. Considering today's traffic volume, you can't just plot down a streetcar down along your main arteries and expect things will be fine.

It's sad that a municipality is able to bully its way into pushing this farce with Translink being set up as the scapegoat once again.

It's simply not a streetcar though, what Atlanta and DC have built is a streetcar. This is clearly not the same thing as that so why call it the same thing. Of course to some degree the project is a vanity project but thats not really different than any big infrastructure project, necessary or not gov wants something that looks nice.

I personally have never understood why people are so against LRT in Surrey while in Ontario (I know I bring it up a lot but I really do think its pretty relavent) they are building LRT's left right and centre (and BRT's and transitways and Subways and RER but thats beyond the point). The actual design is not some awful design and is very similar to the routes and alighnments proposed in Ontario where they have traffic problems that eclipse Surreys. Constantly comparing to Portland might not make the most sense because again Portland while still pretty progressive is still an American city and American cities pretty uniformly have lower transit ridership.

In terms of speed LRT WILL be much faster than current service and one would hope a very nice BRT would be almost just as fast, signal priority and dedicated lanes do miracles in traffic. Of course at ground level crashes are a problem however lanes will still be blocked by a crashed bus so as long as we have a decent number of crossovers you won't be hampering service in a crash THAT much. Also as people seem to forget a two or three car LRT train still has multiples the capacity of even an articulated bus (I don't think proposals involving triartics or trolleys are really that feasible politically or practically and really when have you seen these implemented in North America).

I want to note that I don't want people to think I am just flat our pro-lrt as I'm sure some might think let me explain my position...

First I think the general sentiment that we will end up getting the L Line and Expo Line extension is right. I guess a lot of people are probably anti-L Line because they think it takes funds from the Expo line which they would like to see extended right away. However, lets not forget in the mayors plan the M-Line extension likely eats up a lot of the funds and considering that the expo line extension will also require: major omc expansion, large fleet expansion, several station expansions due to significant ridership increase. I'm guessing the Expo Line to Langley is going to have capital costs easily approaching those of the M-Line extension. Now as someone who grew up in langley I'd like to see the Expo lined extended as much as anyone however in order to make the mayors plan palatable to Surrey I'm sure the L Line was let in because it fit the budget. It's also worth noting that I'm not sure there will be much high density development South of Newton ON King George in the near future (towers) so I don't think anyone can reasonably justify stifiling extensions as a problem.

The issue kind of lies at extending Expo Line is too expensive to fit the current budget and serves Surreys highest growth areas less, Skytrain on the L is just silly because it does a lot to starve funds from the Expo extension and because the corridor probably doesn't need THAT amount of capacity right now. Building LRT then makes the most sense because even if you did create a BRT you'd still be building a lot of that LRT infrastructure, and you would still not be able to extend the Expo Line on the same budget with the way capacity on the trunk is looking. Building LRT leaves you with something with much lower operating costs for maintenance and operations than BRT while still having the same capacity + more expandability in the future with whatever we want to build in Surrey central. Of course you might argue BRT is less expensive but as we've discussed before if you are building BRT that's supposed to offer the same experience as LRT then that cost gap narrows significantly.

Now in terms of vehicles at this point I'm sure they will switch over to Alstom as they have become Ontario's (yet again) defacto Bombardier LRV replacement.

[Reecemartin]

Forgot to mention: I'm not sure what the fuss over the alignment being so bad is, most of the intersections are typical parallel ones that every other city with or building LRT has dealt with mostly fine, the only hairy intersetions are the ones at Central which hopefully they'll amend.

Just one final detail I'd like to point out that I don't think anyone short of Surrey City Council thinks LRT on Fraser Highway is a good idea because then you are going to ruin the potential of a true regional connector something which I'd argue KGB is not.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I personally have never understood why people are so against LRT in Surrey while in Ontario (I know I bring it up a lot but I really do think its pretty relavent) they are building LRT's left right and centre...

People in Metro Vancouver really know only two major types of transit: bus and Skytrain (SeaBus and WCE deliberately excluded here). Skytrain is a pretty deluxe service compared to most metros because its automation allows high frequencies. LRT frequencies are going to be very low by comparison, and it's travel times are also going to suffer. I think when people discover that their "rapid transit" system is going to make them wait considerably longer for a train and then take longer to get them to where they're going they're not going to be very happy about it.

For years Surrey has complained, with some justification, that they've been passed over for other municipalities when it comes to transit. When people discover what the LRT gives them in terms of a transit experience compared to the other regions with Skytrain, I think we're going to discover that they'll still feel like they're getting the short end of the stick.

[GlassCity]

Just because cities in Ontario are getting duped into the LRT fad sweeping the continent doesn't mean we have to follow them.

[Migrant_Coconut]

(sigh) Here we go again. Apologies to everybody else for the wall of text.

A) The existing network is fine. What Surrey needs right now is less sprawl, more through roads and a whole lot more bus frequency.
B) The LRT's been estimated as ONE minute faster than regular bus service – “much faster” for a sloth or snail, not so much for humans.
C) Buses can switch lanes and (almost) brake on a dime. Trains cannot.
D) Surrey’s own review estimates 2,700 pphpd for opening day and 4,080 pphpd when fully built.
E) The 99 B-Line handles around 4,000+ pphpd on an off day, even without any of the advantages that LRT enjoys.
F) The 96 B-Line/BRT is not supposed to be permanent. It’s a stopgap to meet current demand until the SkyTrain can be built to meet future demand.
G) Capital cost is estimated to be more than a combined Langley SkyTrain and BRT.
H) Expanding the SkyTrain OMC & fleet is still cheaper than the cost of a brand new light rail OMC & fleet, plus driver salaries.

In conclusion (all together now), the problem isn’t that the Surrey LRT is diverting money from an Expo extension, the problem is that it’s nothing but a very expensive on-rails BRT that offers all the drawbacks and none of the benefits. Halfway measures never end well for anybody.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I personally have never understood why people are so against LRT in Surrey while in Ontario (I know I bring it up a lot but I really do think its pretty relavent) they are building LRT's left right and centre (and BRT's and transitways and Subways and RER but thats beyond the point). The actual design is not some awful design and is very similar to the routes and alighnments proposed in Ontario where they have traffic problems that eclipse Surreys. Constantly comparing to Portland might not make the most sense because again Portland while still pretty progressive is still an American city and American cities pretty uniformly have lower transit ridership.

One more time: Waterloo/Hamilton/London have contiguous street grids, and are basically independent of Toronto, Ottawa or any big city; Surrey has basically one big road serving its core, and is part of Metro Vancouver (so inter-regional traffic is not only inevitable, but desired). Apples to oranges.

Aaaaand why is America’s ridership lower? Because – you guessed it – their “rapid transit” is a bunch of slow at-grade streetcar networks built to attract developers rather than move people; their grade-separated networks are VERY well-used.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I want to note that I don't want people to think I am just flat our pro-lrt...

Note that you’ve personally witnessed many of us “naysayers” (myself included) take the pro-LRT side on the Arbutus and interurban ROWs - corridors where light rail (arguably) has a valid case. When practically every commenter actually living in Vancouver - whether for or against LRT in general - is against this project, then perhaps there’s something wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Of course you might argue BRT is less expensive but as we've discussed before if you are building BRT that's supposed to offer the same experience as LRT then that cost gap narrows significantly.

BRT: $100-200M
LRT: $1-1.5B
RRT: $2-2.5B

Seems like a pretty even split to me.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Forgot to mention: I'm not sure what the fuss over the alignment being so bad is, most of the intersections are typical parallel ones that every other city with or building LRT has dealt with mostly fine, the only hairy intersetions are the ones at Central which hopefully they'll amend.

Let’s not forget 104th Avenue. Four vehicle lanes are about to become 2 lanes + LRT; to compensate, Surrey will plow a new 2-lane 105 Avenue through a quiet neighbourhood and a park. There’s a whole lot more hairy sections than you’d think; burying them all, to use Eglinton as an example, would be $250M/km.

$1B to build the damn thing, plus $1B ($250M x 4km) to partially grade-separate it. $2 billion for LRT - plus the other complications - means you might as well build a SkyTrain for slighty more money and much better service.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

... I don't think anyone short of Surrey City Council thinks LRT on Fraser Highway is a good idea because then you are going to ruin the potential of a true regional connector something which I'd argue KGB is not.

Is White Rock not part of the region? Do they somehow not deserve a connector?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

this is such a circular conversation. literally, everyone is saying the same things. whether it be how "Ontario is doing it" or "it will cost lots and not save time." seriously, obviously no ones minds is being changed. can we just stop? the last lots and lots of pages have all been the same. a change up would be nice.

[Reecemartin]

Where is the OMC going to be, and can we use the buses from the 96 to increase service down KGB to White Rock once the LRT Phase One constuction is completed? IS there any plan with how the bus networkis going to change?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Just because cities in Ontario are getting duped into the LRT fad sweeping the continent doesn't mean we have to follow them.

The difference here is that it is in it's own ROW and not actually removing lanes.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

this is such a circular conversation. literally, everyone is saying the same things. whether it be how "Ontario is doing it" or "it will cost lots and not save time." seriously, obviously no ones minds is being changed. can we just stop? the last lots and lots of pages have all been the same. a change up would be nice.

I totally agree however, I think to some degree the unfortunate part is that since there isn't any 100% certainty yet people are just still debating the merits. What I'd assume is once LRT construction on KGB/104 i s finalized there will be more to discuss in terms of design and then construction/progress but, right now people still want to keep tlking about merits and demerits. Talking about the design also isn't super plausible until we have a final design etc.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The difference here is that it is in it's own ROW and not actually removing lanes.

I'm still suprised that everyone has such a problem with losing two lanes if it means we willbe building some major passenger infrstructure, especially if parallel roads will be upgraded.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I'm still suprised that everyone has such a problem with losing two lanes if it means we willbe building some major passenger infrstructure, especially if parallel roads will be upgraded.

The problem is, most of those vehicles are not going to disappear. So, traffic will get worse.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The problem is, most of those vehicles are not going to disappear. So, traffic will get worse.

Even if vehicles didn't leave KGB/104 increased traffic should make parallel routes more attractive, and there are works underway to make the parallel streets more capable of handling demand.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Even if vehicles didn't leave KGB/104 increased traffic should make parallel routes more attractive, and there are works underway to make the parallel streets more capable of handling demand.

Like what? 100th Ave is only just now getting 4 laned from 140th to 148th and they added 2 new traffic lights where the old road had none through the green timbers stretch. No new right hand turn lanes at 140th and 148th. Still 2 lanes from 137th to 140th for some stupid reason. 108th is not getting any upgrades besides another traffic slowing light at 142nd. These are not upgrades at all.