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

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I’m sorry, but it’s not my fault if you took it personally. “Various individuals” means “various individuals,” of which there’s been a whole lot while you were gone. I figure that naming names only escalates things.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the LRT as currently planned IS not and WILL not be better than current service. All it does is take the 96 B-Line and put it on rails, at the cost of $1 billion of taxpayer money that could’ve been saved for something that’s actually better. Any potential improvements have been discussed to death; none are being implemented.



A) Ever heard of the sunk cost fallacy? Better to waste ten million than a thousand million.

B) Again, a public transporation line that isn’t very good for public transportation is worthless, no matter how many condos it spurs. Take the former Sydney Monorail.

C) Google “pedestrian streetcar,” or search for some of the near-miss or collision videos in this thread. I’ll wait.



If you don’t like being grouped as a shill, it'd be nice of you to not group us as haters. Once again, many of us support LRT on the right corridor. This is near-unanimously not the right corridor.



And I stand by how that is a load of unsubstantiated solid waste excretion. Using Hamilton as an example once again, the really expensive parts are the track/guideway and utilities relocation - $240M, or 30% of the budget, just to rip up the road, move all the pipes and wires, lay rails, then put the road back down ($48M for the OMC not included).

Whereas buying a few more artics to run the 96 every 2-3 minutes would cost about $110M total - plus perhaps a few more million for traffic light priority - and get the exact same ridership as Surrey’s LRT until the SkyTrain comes along. In case you missed it the first half-dozen times, Surrey's estimated LRT ridership maxed out is 4,080 pphpd, roughly the same as a streetcar or a BRT. Why spend $1B when you can get the same thing for a whole lot less?



It’s been circular for the past two years, yet we all continue to argue it - fighting the fire while feeding the flames seems a bit counter-intuitive.
And many of us have already tried to make our voices heard. There’s a SkyTrain for Surrey page, several petitions and a whole lot of news articles against the LRT. Personally (and this one’s for Sheba too), I’ve sent an email off to TransLink and visited the open house. SkyTrain to Langley seems likely, otherwise, no dice.



Being transit enthusiasts is exactly why we oppose it: though it might look pretty to folks all the way over in Ontario, Surrey/Langley/White Rock locals will be stuck with it, and everybody in Vancouver will be footing the bill for it.

Sweet Morgan Freeman, it’s not like we go over to the Toronto page and talk about how good the Scarborough subway will be...

It is also important to note that that "maxed out" ridership can only be accomplished after a second round of expansion construction... So it will cost even more to meet that target.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

It is also important to note that that "maxed out" ridership can only be accomplished after a second round of expansion construction... So it will cost even more to meet that target.

I think in virtually any case maxing out capacity will require additional vehicles and/or station expansions or other infrastructure expansions.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I think in virtually any case maxing out capacity will require additional vehicles and/or station expansions or other infrastructure expansions.

This is true. Look at how much renovation has had to occur for SkyTrain to even remotely reach the 25,000 pphpd ultimate design capacity (that it STILL hasn't reached).

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I think in virtually any case maxing out capacity will require additional vehicles and/or station expansions or other infrastructure expansions.

True, but this will also require station expansion simply to achieve a pitiful maxed out capacity (again, less than 1/3 of the Canada Line’s).

That’s what makes this all the more depressing.

Also the upgrades to the Expo Line are occurring 30 years after opening (usually a time when a refresher and major maintenance upgrades are needed anyways). I really doubt this LRT will be able to wait 30 years without its expansion.

Also the Expo Line has not required platform extensions yet

I am not flat out against LRT, the same way I don’t blindly support any Subway project, but I feel that anyone who honestly supports this LRT project is someone who would rubber stamp anything on tracks.

[Reecemartin]

Okay so given a max frequency of every five minutes and the Flexity Freedoms 260 person capacity, plus the fact that we can pair two cars together to total 520 person per train capacity we get: 260 * 2 * 12 = 6240 ppdph which is about the same as the Canada Lines current capacity. If we add a third car to each train and reduce the headway to 4 minutes (something which we already do on the 99 at peak, and should have no issue doing on this line) we get a capacity of 11700.

According to someone I know working with the city platforms will be built to hold two cars from the start and the cost of ectending them really isn't that high, mainly just a concrete pour and levelling.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

This is true. Look at how much renovation has had to occur for SkyTrain to even remotely reach the 25,000 pphpd ultimate design capacity (that it STILL hasn't reached).

It certainly is interesting, I think the Canada Line for example will NOT hit 15,000 pphpd without some significant station expansions to improve flow so the price for expansion may be much higher than initially expected. I guess again the fallacy of the Canada Line is that while it is a subway I think building the stations to a proper spec to match the other lines (more space not necessarily longer platforms) would have added a billion dollars to the cost.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Okay so given a max frequency of every five minutes and the Flexity Freedoms 260 person capacity, plus the fact that we can pair two cars together to total 520 person per train capacity we get: 260 * 2 * 12 = 6240 ppdph which is about the same as the Canada Lines current capacity. If we add a third car to each train and reduce the headway to 4 minutes (something which we already do on the 99 at peak, and should have no issue doing on this line) we get a capacity of 11700.

According to someone I know working with the city platforms will be built to hold two cars from the start and the cost of ectending them really isn't that high, mainly just a concrete pour and levelling.

Okay, last I am going to post about this, because this argument isn’t even going in a circle anymore, it is off the rails.

The official design specification documents for this project state a max capacity of 4080 pphpd (again, after a Canada Line style planned secondary expansion).

You can’t just start creating your own max capacity figures.

Again, the 4080 pphpd is not some figure a forum member on here calculated themselves, it is the official figure being used for this project.

Unless the scope of this project is changed involving some major design changes (such as changing the alignments) that figure will not get any higher.

You talk about running trains every 5 minutes, that means having trains crossing those convoluted intersections in the heart of Surrey every 2.5 minutes or so (remember, trains go in both directions). This seems highly problematic for traffic flow, since it would take time each time to clear the intersection, close the gates, let the train pass, open the gates, and resume traffic flow while also sinking up with the traffic light cycles...

Someone else can take over now.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It certainly is interesting, I think the Canada Line for example will NOT hit 15,000 pphpd without some significant station expansions to improve flow so the price for expansion may be much higher than initially expected. I guess again the fallacy of the Canada Line is that while it is a subway I think building the stations to a proper spec to match the other lines (more space not necessarily longer platforms) would have added a billion dollars to the cost.

That whole thing was a debacle though, and it's part of the problem with imperfect information. If they had known the success of it it would have been built to at least 25000 pphpd from the start.

[Reecemartin]

You can very well calculate these figures, its in fact very easy capacity in one direction per hour = vehicle capacity * number of trains per hour. Just as easily you can calculate how many trains they expect to run to get to their capacity. Sure they may have a figure out their already but we can calculate the real capacity with x number of cars easily.

I'm assuming perhaps the reason you think this is "off the rails" is that you seem to be presuming crossing gates will be used. Something which would contradict most of the information that we have suggesting trains will follow specialized traffic signals hence clearing each signal alongside parallel cars.

[Metro-One]

Weren’t you and a couple others championing the ability to use crossing gates as a safety feature? Now the idea of not having them is your desire?

Again, calculate all you want, there is only one official number though that the project managers, contractors, etc... will be using and adhering to.

Even sognalized every 2.5 minutes will still be highly disruptive and still involves time to clear and resume traffic.

🞵🞵🞵🞵 it, I’m done.

Just don’t backpedal when things start 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 up after opening and don’t dare blame Translink for any delay on this line.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Weren’t you and a couple others championing the ability to use crossing gates as a safety feature? Now the idea of not having them is your desire?

Again, calculate all you want, there is only one official number though that the project managers, contractors, etc... will be using and adhering to.

Even sognalized every 2.5 minutes will still be highly disruptive and still involves time to clear and resume traffic.

🞵🞵🞵🞵 it, I’m done.

Just don’t backpedal when things start 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 up after opening and don’t dare blame Translink for any delay on this line.

Again there are numerous options for safety devices of course everything comes at a cost, in the case of using gates you can still run parallel and turning traffic at the same time and typically signals last long enough to have gates go down and a train pass and then have gates go back up.

I'm sure there will be a car crash at some point etc. however it will be likely be a fairly uncommon occurence, changes can be made if there are chronic problems in any area. I don't think anyone on here will blame Translink if a car hits a train, however if response is slow of course that falls into Translinks domain.

Final note: No need to curse, the whole point of a forum is to have a discourse/ public debate of a project the details of which are still largely up in the air (actual contracts have not been awarded). Just because people 🞵🞵🞵🞵 heads on whats a good system or a bad system or in debating the details does not mean you need to start swearing and making it personal, these are all just opinions.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Colin4567

That whole thing was a debacle though, and it's part of the problem with imperfect information. If they had known the success of it it would have been built to at least 25000 pphpd from the start.

It has less to do with imperfect information but more to do with being forced to underbuild the line due to politics. A lot of things were trimmed or scaled down to lower costs to make certain mayors happy.

And this streetcar is being pushed ahead due to political meddling, despite having terrible business case.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

It has less to do with imperfect information but more to do with being forced to underbuild the line due to politics. A lot of things were trimmed or scaled down to lower costs to make certain mayors happy.

And this streetcar is being pushed ahead due to political meddling, despite having terrible business case.

If Waterloo's resulting development is any indication business cases may have underpredicted the reaction to an LRT vs. Skytrain option. While clearly superior from a technical perspective I think it seems to be less clear from an investment perspective that Skytrain will draw more investment, but don't take my word for it we will see for ourselves once the line is built and it will probably have an impact on the Lanagley line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

You can very well calculate these figures, its in fact very easy capacity in one direction per hour = vehicle capacity * number of trains per hour. Just as easily you can calculate how many trains they expect to run to get to their capacity. Sure they may have a figure out their already but we can calculate the real capacity with x number of cars easily.

I'm assuming perhaps the reason you think this is "off the rails" is that you seem to be presuming crossing gates will be used. Something which would contradict most of the information that we have suggesting trains will follow specialized traffic signals hence clearing each signal alongside parallel cars.

Pretty sure that "off the rails" refers to you pulling numbers out of thin air. Just because Waterloo and Toronto are using 250-passenger Freedoms doesn't mean Surrey will.

This is getting REALLY old, but the people who are actually planning the line already "calculated these figures;" they came up with 2k with one car every five minutes on opening, and 4.1k with two cars every three minutes when fully upgraded. Perhaps you'd like to go to them directly and tell them their math is off?

[Trainguy]

Wasn't funding for this vanity project supposed to all be in place by the end of 2017? Obviously that didn't happen. We might be here a year later in the same position waiting for funding to be 100% in place.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pretty sure that "off the rails" refers to you pulling numbers out of thin air. Just because Waterloo and Toronto are using 250-passenger Freedoms doesn't mean Surrey will.

This is getting REALLY old, but the people who are actually planning the line already "calculated these figures;" they came up with 2k with one car every five minutes on opening, and 4.1k with two cars every three minutes when fully upgraded. Perhaps you'd like to go to them directly and tell them their math is off?

All suggestions from their graphics etc suggest they will be using Freedoms or a similar 30m LRV which has a capacity around 250. It really is not that hard to do this calculations and since we have frequencies and a likely lrv right there you can calculate capacity.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Wasn't funding for this vanity project supposed to all be in place by the end of 2017? Obviously that didn't happen. We might be here a year later in the same position waiting for funding to be 100% in place.

Well the change in provincial government likely didn't help, I think they are expecting everything to be lcoked down early 2018.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

All suggestions from their graphics etc suggest they will be using Freedoms or a similar 30m LRV which has a capacity around 250. It really is not that hard to do this calculations and since we have frequencies and a likely lrv right there you can calculate capacity.

Three words: "placeholders" and "promotional imagery" - same reason a TV dinner looks nothing like the one on the box.

Surrey's numbers (2,040 pphpd/12, or 4,080/12/2) reveal that they're looking at a max capacity of 170 per car, closer to an American streetcar.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Three words: "placeholders" and "promotional imagery" - same reason a TV dinner looks nothing like the one on the box.

Surrey's numbers (2,040 pphpd/12, or 4,080/12/2) reveal that they're looking at a max capacity of 170 per car, closer to an American streetcar.

See this is where I totally don't get what you are talking about, I literally went through the EPR and drew this out

"LRT Vehicles
The design of the LRT vehicles has yet to be finalized;
however, current plans call for approximately
30-metre-long articulated vehicles (((this could be freedoms or citadis)))), with a capacity
of more than 200 passengers((( aligns with it being freedom citadis or similar))) (see Figure 5)".

It has nothing to do with not understanding promotional imagery this is a LRT project it should be obvious that they will be using LRV's: read here https://surreylightrail.ca/Documents/Surrey%20LRT%20Environmental%20Review%20Process%20Summary.pdf.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Three words: "placeholders" and "promotional imagery" - same reason a TV dinner looks nothing like the one on the box.

Surrey's numbers (2,040 pphpd/12, or 4,080/12/2) reveal that they're looking at a max capacity of 170 per car, closer to an American streetcar.

The numbers make sense. The two "popular" rolling stocks in Canada just now are:
- Bombardier Flexity Freedom (164 per car) - being used in GTA, Waterloo and Edmonton
- Alstom Citadis Spirit (292 per car) - being used in Ottawa and GTA