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

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by casper

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

To correct you straigh off Flexity Spec Sheet: 56 (seats) 130 (standees) 4 (accessible spaces) 251 (total capacity) [2]
I.e. fully loaded freedoms can hold 250

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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)".

Ah, that’s the problem - you’re reading the Environmental Review Process, I’m reading the Socio-Economic Review (neither one refers to the Freedom or Citadis at all):

The design of the LRT vehicles has yet to be finalized, but are anticipated to be articulated single unit vehicles approximately 30 metres (m) long, each with a capacity of approximately 200 passengers (Figure 2).

But since "more than" and “approximately” can be taken any number of ways, the SER gave an actual estimate too, page 11-12 (I'll admit to missing the "200" in the footnote). And then there’s this right below it:

The ridership analysis indicates that on opening day in 2023, it is estimated there will be 3,300 boardings on the SNG Line during the AM Peak hour (or 36,000 daily boardings) based on the AM peak hour forecast model. This daily ridership is predicted to reach between 51,000 and 55,000 by 2030 and to increase to between 71,000 and 77,000 by 2045. Newton, King George, Surrey Central and Guildford stops show the highest boardings/alightings as these stops serve as key transit exchanges. Table 3 shows the forecasted ridership summary from opening day in 2023 up to 2045. The PM peak load has been scaled based on existing 96-B Line observed data.

That’s 7 years to reach the same ridership as the 99 B-Line, and another 15 to get half as much ridership as the Canada Line. See why everybody thinks it's bad value for money?

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

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

Because no politician's ever made a false promise before, of course.

All I said was that not everything in a rendering is true – that’s how advertising works, after all.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

To correct you straigh off Flexity Spec Sheet: 56 (seats) 130 (standees) 4 (accessible spaces) 251 (total capacity) [2]
I.e. fully loaded freedoms can hold 250

We are both correct..... I was using the 3 module version, your using the 5 module version.

See details here
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/bombardier-flexity-freedom-brochure-2011-pdf.95184/

[Envder]

Originally Posted by casper

We are both correct..... I was using the 3 module version, your using the 5 module version.

See details here
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/bombardier-flexity-freedom-brochure-2011-pdf.95184/

I like on page 7 they say

The FLEXITY Freedom offers unit variations in 3 and 5 module
configurations. These vehicles can also be coupled together to form
trains of up to 4 cars, yielding an overall capacity of more than 30,000
passengers per hour, per direction (PPHPD).

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Envder

I like on page 7 they say

They also have a seven module one and maybe nine, they use a seven on the Goldcoast G:Link I believe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXg-7kxdKmw).

I mean that is also correct. Since the stations are just curbs you can have up to 4 cars, getting to 30,000 pphpd will require ATC (an automatic system similar to what skytrain uses) which these LRV's can use but not with a mixed alignment (it there are longer grade separated portions like Eglinton you can have partial ATC).

While of course there is no direct reference it seems in the Canadian market these are the overwhelmingly most popular and best valued options.

I'll note that the 5-module version is 30 m I believe the 3 is quite a bit less. In addition the capacity should be about 250 at crush no matter who they use since the internal layouts are similar hence you are pretty much just calculating how many people can fit in a 30x2.5m footprint.

Fundamentlly though if they wanted to eventually extend to 4 car-120 m trains they could fit about 1050 people on each train. Assuming they can get trains going at a one directional frequency of 4 minutes which shouldn't be too problematic you could have 15 trains per hour or 15750 in one direction.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Envder

I like on page 7 they say

Those are the extreme crush-load capacity that you probably won't see them in North America. I remembered the spec for the newest Innova ART 300 (MKIII cars on SkyTrain) states the maximum capacity is something over 50,000 pphpd.

That's with 6-cars, and only 100m platform is needed.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Fundamentlly though if they wanted to eventually extend to 4 car-120 m trains they could fit about 1050 people on each train. Assuming they can get trains going at a one directional frequency of 4 minutes which shouldn't be too problematic you could have 15 trains per hour or 15750 in one direction.

Even 3-min frequency could work if the line is properly designed and built. But with all those tight turns and multiple crossings near Surrey Central, I don't see how those long trains could crawl through the intersections without causing a big mess.

And 120m at-grade platforms? There'll probably more things to worry about before even start building them. Especially on narrow streets like the 104th...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by nname

Those are the extreme crush-load capacity that you probably won't see them in North America. I remembered the spec for the newest Innova ART 300 (MKIII cars on SkyTrain) states the maximum capacity is something over 50,000 pphpd.

That's with 6-cars, and only 100m platform is needed.




Even 3-min frequency could work if the line is properly designed and built. But with all those tight turns and multiple crossings near Surrey Central, I don't see how those long trains could crawl through the intersections without causing a big mess.

And 120m at-grade platforms? There'll probably more things to worry about before even start building them. Especially on narrow streets like the 104th...

They can actually accelerate quite fast so I'm not sure it would have to be a crawl, just needs some better engineering worrk done. If any intersection could use GS it's this one though and we all know it. If it was me or another jurisdiction I'd also have the LRT go tunneled to Link with King George through a pedestrian tunnel rather than going all the way across the road.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

They can actually accelerate quite fast so I'm not sure it would have to be a crawl, just needs some better engineering worrk done. If any intersection could use GS it's this one though and we all know it. If it was me or another jurisdiction I'd also have the LRT go tunneled to Link with King George through a pedestrian tunnel rather than going all the way across the road.

They can't accelerate past the intersection if there's a 90-degree curve with another intersection after it. They can't accelerate past that one either as there's yet another 90-degree curve right after. I'm not sure if there's even 120m between the 2 curves and 3 intersections...

I agree that they would need to go underground through the entire Surrey Central area, or just bypass Surrey Central station and stay on King George Blvd all the way. But this just defeat their purpose of "urban transformation" and "vibrate city centre", right?

[casper]

Originally Posted by nname

They can't accelerate past the intersection if there's a 90-degree curve with another intersection after it. They can't accelerate past that one either as there's yet another 90-degree curve right after. I'm not sure if there's even 120m between the 2 curves and 3 intersections...

I agree that they would need to go underground through the entire Surrey Central area, or just bypass Surrey Central station and stay on King George Blvd all the way. But this just defeat their purpose of "urban transformation" and "vibrate city centre", right?

Underground or at grade in a downtown core? Calgary and Edmonton did the experiment already.

Calgary got more light rail for the money and created a mess in the downtown core.

Edmonton got less light rail but it works better with the downtown core.

Calgary is now building yet another line, and going underground.

I vote for underground and limited points of interaction with street traffic.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by nname

They can't accelerate past the intersection if there's a 90-degree curve with another intersection after it. They can't accelerate past that one either as there's yet another 90-degree curve right after. I'm not sure if there's even 120m between the 2 curves and 3 intersections...

I agree that they would need to go underground through the entire Surrey Central area, or just bypass Surrey Central station and stay on King George Blvd all the way. But this just defeat their purpose of "urban transformation" and "vibrate city centre", right?

To be honest staying on King George really isn't a huge deal considering the stations already aren't going to be that highly integrated (plus the walk isn't that long) and hopefully eventually the whole are will be high density and not just parking lots. I suggested just creating a short underground section at King George because it would improve the alignment and do a lot to improve that intersection plus it would cost less than grade separating the whole central bit while being almost as fast.

The trains themselves can move pretty quickly so I'm not sure what you are referring to, they can still move quite fast through corners though maybe your suggesting (and I agree) that the space the corners more.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by nname

I agree that they would need to go underground through the entire Surrey Central area, or just bypass Surrey Central station and stay on King George Blvd all the way. But this just defeat their purpose of "urban transformation" and "vibrate city centre", right?

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

To be honest staying on King George really isn't a huge deal considering the stations already aren't going to be that highly integrated (plus the walk isn't that long) and hopefully eventually the whole are will be high density and not just parking lots. I suggested just creating a short underground section at King George because it would improve the alignment and do a lot to improve that intersection plus it would cost less than grade separating the whole central bit while being almost as fast.

I wish they would leave it on King George instead of having it meander past Surrey Central Station. Anyone transferring to the Skytrain can do it at King George Station and anyone transferring to a bus will have a short walk - according to Google maps King George to City Parkway is 160m / 2 mins to walk.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I suggested just creating a short underground section at King George because it would improve the alignment and do a lot to improve that intersection plus it would cost less than grade separating the whole central bit while being almost as fast.

That could work - go underground just before King George, run under Holland Park and the side lane beside the mall, turn and rise to street level at 135th/City Parkway.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That could work - go underground just before King George, run under Holland Park and the side lane beside the mall, turn and rise to street level at 135th/City Parkway.

Frankly it's not unlikely to work, the smart move for the city would be to rquire provisions for it when adjacent lands are developed.

Truthfully having it run into Surrey Central is pointless and complicates the alignment just so they can see it out of the windows at city hall.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Truthfully having it run into Surrey Central is pointless and complicates the alignment just so they can see it out of the windows at city hall.

But if they can't see it from their windows, then what's the point of building it?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But if they can't see it from their windows, then what's the point of building it?

The level of stupidity of some parts of it is stupid, I still think it would be an interesting addition to our transit mix. But its what we have so I don't want to see it crash and burn.

[ilikeredheads]

time to once again look into the future by looking at the present:
• Video Link

Must be pretty common occurrence judging by their lack of reactions.

[dpogue]

TransLink CEO says there is no chance of Surrey's L-line being anything but LRT, but the Langley extension is still undecided as of yet: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-2017-kevin-desmond-surrey-light-rail

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The level of stupidity of some parts of it is stupid, I still think it would be an interesting addition to our transit mix. But its what we have so I don't want to see it crash and burn.

Alas, the stupid appears to outweigh the non-stupid. Nobody wants to see anything fail - all we've ever said is that given the results all over the world, it probably will.

Originally Posted by dpogue

TransLink CEO says there is no chance of Surrey's L-line being anything but LRT, but the Langley extension is still undecided as of yet: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-2017-kevin-desmond-surrey-light-rail

Probably for the best, given the circumstances; now Surrey gets what they want, Langley can get what they want, and we'll see which one gets the better deal.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

time to once again look into the future by looking at the present:
• Video Link

Must be pretty common occurrence judging by their lack of reactions.

See this isn't the same as Surrey's LRT which will have lanes separated by some sort of divider, thats why I am so against lumping LRT in as the same as a streetcar, because streetcars don't have a dedicated laneway.

Also worth noting that the L-Linephase one is set to cost a little over 1 billion not the 2 billion plus many have stated when saying it was cost competitive to Skytrain on the L corridor.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Alas, the stupid appears to outweigh the non-stupid. Nobody wants to see anything fail - all we've ever said is that given the results all over the world, it probably will.



Probably for the best, given the circumstances; now Surrey gets what they want, Langley can get what they want, and we'll see which one gets the better deal.

In the end Surrey gets both and they probably won't be complaining.