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

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

That BRT in France is great but yet again a system like that is going to be virtually equivalent in cost to an LRT as it requires large capital investment.

From Translinks Surrey rapid transit study...

LRT - 70 million/km

BRT - 22.5 million/km

TRAVEL TIME - Surrey Centre to Langley Centre

LRT - 29 minutes

BRT - 30 minutes

Where are you getting your numbers from?

https://surreylightrail.ca/Documents/surrey_rapid_transit_study_infographic.pdf

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by logan5

From Translinks Surrey rapid transit study...

LRT - 70 million/km

BRT - 22.5 million/km

TRAVEL TIME - Surrey Centre to Langley Centre

LRT - 29 minutes

BRT - 30 minutes

Where are you getting your numbers from?

https://surreylightrail.ca/Documents/surrey_rapid_transit_study_infographic.pdf

this is from the people pushing for LRT... even they don't show it being the same as BRT. i want to know where you are getting your numbers to. you say the same things over and over and ignore when someone points out the contrary with facts from the same people pushing for LRT.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by logan5

From Translinks Surrey rapid transit study...

LRT - 70 million/km

BRT - 22.5 million/km

TRAVEL TIME - Surrey Centre to Langley Centre

LRT - 29 minutes

BRT - 30 minutes

Where are you getting your numbers from?

https://surreylightrail.ca/Documents/surrey_rapid_transit_study_infographic.pdf

That capital cost is not creating a BRT that is like the one in France described. We keep going over this point, there are different levels of BRT and one with

Fully Segregated Lanes
Large Shelters with raised crubs, CVM's, Displays
Specialized Vehicles

The problem is that whenever cost comes up people resort to the Translink numbers for cost (basically diet BRT) but, when someone states some nice features LRT would have then they bring up some wild BRT implementation which while perhaps being a close match to LRT does not have that much lower cost that Translink calculated.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by logan5

From Translinks Surrey rapid transit study...

LRT - 70 million/km

BRT - 22.5 million/km

TRAVEL TIME - Surrey Centre to Langley Centre

LRT - 29 minutes

BRT - 30 minutes

Where are you getting your numbers from?

https://surreylightrail.ca/Documents/surrey_rapid_transit_study_infographic.pdf

So, spend an extra $48 million to save 1 minute?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

That capital cost is not creating a BRT that is like the one in France described. We keep going over this point, there are different levels of BRT and one with

Fully Segregated Lanes
Large Shelters with raised crubs, CVM's, Displays
Specialized Vehicles

... And the study refers to examples of BRT in Eugene, OR that have all of those. It IS like the one described in France.

Again, the main expenses for LRT isn't the dedicated lane or stations or signalling, it's laying the tracks and relocating utilities (which BRT doesn't need). I'll offer the Hamilton cost breakdown once again, please read it this time.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The problem is that whenever cost comes up people resort to the Translink numbers for cost (basically diet BRT) but, when someone states some nice features LRT would have then they bring up some wild BRT implementation which while perhaps being a close match to LRT does not have that much lower cost that Translink calculated.

No, the problem is that TransLink's numbers cover all the features that BRT has in common with LRT, but you ignore them because they don't fit your argument. Once again, feel free to go to TransLink and let them know that they counted wrong.

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, spend an extra $48 million to save 1 minute?

well... $48 Million / km x 11 km = $528 Million.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

well... $48 Million / km x 11 km = $528 Million.

It shouldn't take a half hour to go 11km anyways.....

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It shouldn't take a half hour to go 11km anyways.....

It will if it averages just over 20km/hr (which I believe is close to the estimate for the Surrey LRT).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

It will if it averages just over 20km/hr (which I believe is close to the estimate for the Surrey LRT).

What is the average speed of the Skytrain?

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is the average speed of the Skytrain?

~45 km/h for Expo, slightly less for Millennium I believe.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by KPELLY

~45 km/h for Expo, slightly less for Millennium I believe.

So, spend a ridiculous amount of money to go slower? Sounds like a great deal to me

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, spend a ridiculous amount of money to go slower? Sounds like a great deal to me

The stop spacing is not the same so indeed the average speed is lower. Also you are limited by the road speed limit.

Some pull tests from Waterloos LRT are out, a good example of what will be running in Surrey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUl18TFcMiU

In terms of cost you may very well be correct, in the end I'm just not confident the project has any chance of being a BRT and I'd rather immediately start advocating for the best LRT possible rather than just saying its worse than BRT for reasons a,b,c.

It's also important to note that whether or not you need a util. relocation on building LRT vs. BRT I doubt we expect to be using BRT for 40 years so at some point that relocation will be invitable.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The stop spacing is not the same so indeed the average speed is lower. Also you are limited by the road speed limit.

Some pull tests from Waterloos LRT are out, a good example of what will be running in Surrey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUl18TFcMiU

In terms of cost you may very well be correct, in the end I'm just not confident the project has any chance of being a BRT and I'd rather immediately start advocating for the best LRT possible rather than just saying its worse than BRT for reasons a,b,c.

It's also important to note that whether or not you need a util. relocation on building LRT vs. BRT I doubt we expect to be using BRT for 40 years so at some point that relocation will be invitable.

Or we could leave it as a B-Line for now 'cause it's not at capacity, and start building where it's actually needed instead. The L Line is the least needed upgrade.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The stop spacing is not the same so indeed the average speed is lower. Also you are limited by the road speed limit.

No. Nada. Nein. Nyet. Both BRT and LRT were assumed to have the exact same stops, dedicated lanes and lack of signal priority (page 43).

Travel Times on Rapid Transit and Best Bus
Travel times between major origins and destinations in the study area were estimated based on the design assumptions for each of the alternatives, and their resulting effects on travel time. The following key assumptions were made:

- BRT and LRT operate at street level in segregated medians (on tires or on tracks), and due to other traffic being segregated, the BRT/LRT vehicles can operate up to the posted speed limit. BRT/LRT operations through Green Timbers Urban Forest and south of Highway 10 on King George Blvd/152 St, where there is transit priority but the lanes are shared with other traffic, were assumed to be approximately 10 km/h slower.

- BRT and LRT vehicles would have to stop at intersections when the traffic signal indication is red. The travel time impact of traffic signals includes deceleration, wait time, and then acceleration after the signal turns green. If the BRT/LRT vehicle encounters a green signal, it proceeds through at full speed. The travel time effects of signals are a probability-weighted average of the red-signal and green-signal conditions encountered.

LRT wins by that extra minute because it accelerates and brakes slightly faster than its BRT counterpart. That's it.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It's also important to note that whether or not you need a util. relocation on building LRT vs. BRT I doubt we expect to be using BRT for 40 years so at some point that relocation will be invitable.

Right, which is why nine-tenths of the thread is advocating for a SkyTrain - at least then, relocation is good value for money.

[Reecemartin]

When referring to the stop spacing I'm not even referring to BRT. Frankly as I have always stated the Surrey LRT leaves some things to be desired, but as plenty of examples show an LRT just like Surreys could be successful ~ I don't think complaining on here that LRT is bad is changing my opinion, there are obviously issues with street running but, they are FAR overblown. Not to mention issues like permanence, capcity etc. which are points that are in LRT's favor (I don't know why it is that some seem to think LRT has absolutely no reddming attributes - if that were the case we wouldn't even be debating ).

Final words - We would all (including me) prefer Skytrains up and down instead of trams/streetcars/light rail/trolleys whatever term people want to use (aparently some are derogatory idk). Since unsuprisingly the city of Surrey is the main org. pushing this project they have unsuprisingly placed the main constraint as permanent rail infra for least money (in which case obv from a development purpose LRT smashes skytrain). My only reason for giving up on trying to push Skytrain is that for quite some time its seemed clear to me that LRT was happening like it or not. That combined with going out and riding some systems (good and bad) makes me feel like this project while obviously not AS good as Skytrain can still be really great and the street running rail can also add a different character to the street and that excites me as well.

Nonetheless, back to the project do we know if Signal Priority will somehow be linked to Surreys traffic management centre? Seems logical enough...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

When referring to the stop spacing I'm not even referring to BRT.

Oh, you meant LRT has shorter spacing than SkyTrain? Sorry, but they're the same too.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Frankly as I have always stated the Surrey LRT leaves some things to be desired, but as plenty of examples show an LRT just like Surreys could be successful...

... Not to mention issues like permanence, capcity etc. which are points that are in LRT's favor (I don't know why it is that some seem to think LRT has absolutely no reddming attributes - if that were the case we wouldn't even be debating ).

And the successful ones are grade-separated (Eglinton, Confederation, suburban Calgary) or at-grade in less car-oriented cities (Vienna, Amsterdam). Surrey's is neither.

At last check, it's only GlassCity and Kisai that are explicitly anti-LRT; I know for a fact that you've seen many of us take the pro-LRT side for other routes. The fact that practically everybody agrees that this is a bad idea is pretty telling.
As for permanence and capacity, yes, LRT has those. So does RRT, if Surrey could wait for the next construction cycle. But we already know all of this by now.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

My only reason for giving up on trying to push Skytrain is that for quite some time its seemed clear to me that LRT was happening like it or not. That combined with going out and riding some systems (good and bad) makes me feel like this project while obviously not AS good as Skytrain can still be really great and the street running rail can also add a different character to the street and that excites me as well.

And again, until Hepner gets re-elected and TransLink get shovels in the ground, nothing's a done deal.

It's like the Trump administration: we don't know what's going to happen next, but we do know that optimism is an exercise in futility. So we're watching on the sidelines, growing equally amused, annoyed and frustrated all at once, whilst simultaneously hoping for something that can shut the whole thing down.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Nonetheless, back to the project do we know if Signal Priority will somehow be linked to Surreys traffic management centre? Seems logical enough...

It's going to be a TransLink project, so while they might coordinate with traffic management, they'll probably want/need their own building.

[logicbomb]

Construction of the 105A Ave collector has begun. Hawthrone Park looks rather bare now...was not expecting that many trees to be removed.

Asked a few questions to an engineer inside:

105A Ave will have 30km/hr speed zones from 139 ST to 144 ST and 146 ST to 150 ST.

104th Ave will be down to one lane each way. No right turn or left turn lanes because they will widen sidewalks.

The City of Surrey wants TL to run parallel transit service down 105A over 104th Ave due to the reduction in road capacity.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Construction of the 105A Ave collector has begun. Hawthrone Park looks rather bare now...was not expecting that many trees to be removed.

Asked a few questions to an engineer inside:

105A Ave will have 30km/hr speed zones from 139 ST to 144 ST and 146 ST to 150 ST.

104th Ave will be down to one lane each way. No right turn or left turn lanes because they will widen sidewalks.

The City of Surrey wants TL to run parallel transit service down 105A over 104th Ave due to the reduction in road capacity.

Let the gong show begin...

Also, I can't see TransLink wanting to run service down a slow 105A Avenue vs the roomier 108th Avenue...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Millennium2002

Let the gong show begin...

Also, I can't see TransLink wanting to run service down a slow 105A Avenue vs the roomier 108th Avenue...

Well routes may need to be redirected due to construction as well in the meantime.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Oh, you meant LRT has shorter spacing than SkyTrain? Sorry, but they're the same too.

Look at the distances between several Skytrain station pairs, some are HUGE.

ION as an example already seems to be set up to be quite successful and it has several on street streetcar style segments.

I think you are painting things too much in Black and White, if Surrey needs to wait for Skytrain to lay rails it might be 20 years before the second biggest city (probably the largest ) has any significant rail infrastructure (which indeed is capable of higher build out capacity full stop).


As an aside it kind of comes off as condescending, when you talk the way some of these come off.... I'm just trying to keep things relaxed

On a totally different note, how are the options in terms of Hydro ROW's? Might be an interesting way to expand some higher capacity commuter rail.