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

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

woooooweeeeee round and round we go. its like a merry-go-round. you end where you start and get nowhere.

[Vantage]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

woooooweeeeee round and round we go. its like a merry-go-round. you end where you start and get nowhere.

I've been subscribed to this thread for at least a year and a half. It has been exactly as you said for the whole time I've been subscribed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

[Metro-One]

When people keep spouting the same incorrect / fabricated information, sadly you must keep countering them, if not lies become truth.

It sucks it has to drag for so long, but so did the Evergreen Line discussion before it was built, and if those who knew that Skytrain was the superior choice simply gave up and said that enough over those advocating LRT, well then maybe it would have ended up as the original surface LRT.

It may seem inconsequential to us on here by how few post, but many people do read this form. More than many would suspect.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Just for reference, the SkyTrain line would be shut down for at least an hour, judging from when a car struck a guideway pillar in Richmond.

And that rarely happens. With LRT car and pedestrian incidents will probably happen a few times a month guarantee.

[Trainguy]

Metro Vancouver’s mayors sent a clear message to higher levels of government and the public Thursday when they pledged to stay the course with their transit plans for the region.

It was the first time every member of TransLink’s Mayors’ Council voted in favour of a motion related to the their 10-Year Vision for Metro Vancouver Transportation.

“I think it is a statement reaffirming the interests of the Mayors’ Council and I don’t have any difficulty in it going forward,” said Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who was elected as chairman of the council in December. “I don’t want any confusion to happen in what we’re attempting to do.”

The vote took place at a TransLink Mayors’ Council meeting, where Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore made a motion that called on the council to support the implementation of Phase 2 of the three-phase transportation plan in early 2018, as planned, and begin preliminary work on the third phase.

The first phase was approved in the fall of 2016 and it is under way. The second phase includes major projects such as light rail in Surrey, a SkyTrain extension in Vancouver, and replacing the aging Pattullo Bridge.


“I thought it was important that the Mayors’ Council come together and make it crystal clear about our intentions to move forward fully with Phase 2 — the major projects in Phase 2 as well as the other services,” Moore said.

Moore made the motion in light of Corrigan’s election as chair. Corrigan has long been the sole vote against the 10-year plan and has publicly questioned whether TransLink can deliver all of the projects promised. He has suggested the possibility of slowing down some of the major projects.

“I do think there has been some confusion around the messaging of how important this is to the Mayors’ Council as a whole and the timing of it — that it’s critical — and I think this motion does clarify that,” said Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner, who praised the work Corrigan has done behind the scenes during the short time he has been chair.

Delta Mayor Lois Jackson has worked with Corrigan for almost 20 years and she said that while they don’t always agree, she has confidence in his ability to finish the funding negotiations.

“If Derek Corrigan says he’s going to get it done, he’s going to get it done,” Jackson said.

Even Corrigan got on board, saying he was happy to vote for the motion, “even if it is a bit redundant.”

New Westminster Mayor Jonathan Coté agreed there was nothing new in the motion.

“It is a reaffirmation of the longstanding positions of the Mayors’ Council, but I think actually we’re at an important juncture that we do have to make that strong support toward the mayors’ 10-year plan.”

The critical juncture to which Coté referred is TransLink’s need to confirm funding from the federal and provincial governments, which have each committed to paying for 40 per cent of the cost of major capital projects, as well as how it is going to cover its $60-million to $80-million annual regional funding gap.

Corrigan said after the meeting that he didn’t believe that the provincial carbon tax would end up being a source of funding. The mayors suggested in the fall that TransLink should receive a portion of the tax that is actually generated in Metro Vancouver through the transportation sector.

However, Corrigan said negotiations are ongoing and federal and provincial support for the plan is strong. He felt confident that the March deadline for funding approval would be met.

“We’re looking for ways to balance our responsibilities and to ensure that all the funding is in place to deliver this program and we want to find a palatable solution for people in the Lower Mainland to be able to pay for it,” Corrigan said. “Progress is being made every single day.”

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson suggested that the motion that was approved Thursday would help.

“We’ve been really solid on support for the plan over the years, but not unanimous before so this is a breakthrough for mayors throughout the region,” he said. “It gives us more ammunition talking to the province and the federal government.”



The part about the funding is still undecided and no money has actually come forth... promises are just that... promises.... show me the money. What about the funding gap? How do they make that up?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

However, Corrigan said negotiations are ongoing and federal and provincial support for the plan is strong. He felt confident that the March deadline for funding approval would be met.

So not terribly long after the provincial budget...

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And the LRT would not also require significant fleet and storage expansions? The fact that the LRT requires it own entirely new OMC is a major cost factor that has been over looked until very recently in estimates.

Also station expansions are not a make or break aspect for such a Skytrain extension.

Also, would the same station expansions not still be needed with the LRT deleivering the same number of people into the system at King George? Our are you accidentally admitting that the LRT will generate lower ridership numbers?

Also everything does not need to be graded separated, but there are many cases / scenarios, especially with rapid transit, where doing such is the superior choice.

You refer to this stuff at lies, however I never stated that this wouldn't be required? In fact its probably the most obvious cost of building a totally independent subsystem. I'd also be amazed if the cost of the OMC was actually overlooked because the people planning the proposals aren't the Surrey politicians who blindly push it, I'm sure they aren't so ignorant as to forget such key pieces.

To the contrary I'm just trying to point out that benefits that maybe we would have had if an extension had been done 10 years ago don't still exist. The Expo Line is growing increasingly crowded and so indeed a project of this scope would likely be the straw that breaks the camels back in terms of needing to do some major infrastructure upgrades considering all the extra ridership that such an extension would likely draw. Indeed some stations that aren't being upgraded currently still have platforms and entrances which won't be able to deal with the demand. In addition considering how long it will likely be until the Expo Line extension (which nobody assumes fraser highway won't be) we are going to STILL need to do a major fleet expansion.

"Our are you accidentally admitting that the LRT will generate lower ridership numbers?"

Do you really think I have some sort of personal affection with at-grade LRT where I must think it is the ultimate alternate to Skytrain and where it beats it in every area?

It's clear that it would create less of a bump in ridership for obvious reasons, and if you've followed what the city etc. have been saying this is all intentional. They don't want Surrey residents hopping on an "Express" train and quickly leaving Surrey (note: "Express" not "fast"). The whole point of the LRT is that Surrey thinks its a good way of building higher order transit that encourages local travel over regional travel. To some degree this makes sense from a Surrey Business perspective since if a traveller is starting their journey near the LRT that might make them more likely to choose a local option. Perhaps a Prime example of this is Metrotown vs. Guildford, presumably a rider coming from Newton or South Surrey and going shopping would be more likely to want a one seat ride to the mall rather than having to get off and climb a light up stairs for an (albeit small) wait for the next train.

I'd like to point out so that you don't think I'm trying to make out every statement I make as baselessly Pro-LRT, that it's obvious that there are numerous benefits to Skytrain, especially on a regional level. That being said I'd say to the average layman the above logic makes a lot of sense, and thats what the city has gone around with in order to stoke support up. Im just stating what I see here.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

You refer to this stuff at lies, however I never stated that this wouldn't be required? In fact its probably the most obvious cost of building a totally independent subsystem. I'd also be amazed if the cost of the OMC was actually overlooked because the people planning the proposals aren't the Surrey politicians who blindly push it, I'm sure they aren't so ignorant as to forget such key pieces.

Relax - if you mean this, he never suggested YOU were lying (I won't name names, but the "lies" part was probably targeted at certain other posters), only that maybe you hadn't thought about it enough. You've questioned TransLink's numbers too, after all.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It's clear that it would create less of a bump in ridership for obvious reasons, and if you've followed what the city etc. have been saying this is all intentional. They don't want Surrey residents hopping on an "Express" train and quickly leaving Surrey (note: "Express" not "fast"). The whole point of the LRT is that Surrey thinks its a good way of building higher order transit that encourages local travel over regional travel. To some degree this makes sense from a Surrey Business perspective since if a traveller is starting their journey near the LRT that might make them more likely to choose a local option. Perhaps a Prime example of this is Metrotown vs. Guildford, presumably a rider coming from Newton or South Surrey and going shopping would be more likely to want a one seat ride to the mall rather than having to get off and climb a light up stairs for an (albeit small) wait for the next train.

I'd like to point out so that you don't think I'm trying to make out every statement I make as baselessly Pro-LRT, that it's obvious that there are numerous benefits to Skytrain, especially on a regional level. That being said I'd say to the average layman the above logic makes a lot of sense, and thats what the city has gone around with in order to stoke support up. Im just stating what I see here.

Again, nobody's accusing you personally of anything. I myself can't blame Surrey Council and businesses for thinking that way.

What I CAN blame them for is thinking it'll actually work. Slowing people down doesn't make them change their destination, it just makes them waste more time. If (let's use your example) Guildford's scared of Metrotown outcompeting them, then the answer is to make Guildford better; protectionism is almost never the answer.

[logicbomb]

Fact that everyone can agree on: Developers are for this project because it ticks another box along these corridors and adds a tourist attaction to the region.

This is not a public transportation project. This is not about moving people around in a rapid or efficient manner. City staff has confirmed this.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The whole point of the LRT is that Surrey thinks its a good way of building higher order transit that encourages local travel over regional travel. To some degree this makes sense from a Surrey Business perspective since if a traveller is starting their journey near the LRT that might make them more likely to choose a local option. Perhaps a Prime example of this is Metrotown vs. Guildford, presumably a rider coming from Newton or South Surrey and going shopping would be more likely to want a one seat ride to the mall rather than having to get off and climb a light up stairs for an (albeit small) wait for the next train.

There already is a one seat ride from Newton to Guildford - it's called the 96 B-Line. It's not at capacity and it's not likely to be anytime soon. If anyone near the line wants to go shopping they're already going to take it - changing it from an on-ground bus to an on-ground train isn't going to make much difference.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What I CAN blame them for is thinking it'll actually work. Slowing people down doesn't make them change their destination, it just makes them waste more time. If (let's use your example) Guildford's scared of Metrotown outcompeting them, then the answer is to make Guildford better; protectionism is almost never the answer.

Exactly. If people are choosing to leave their region (in this case going to Metrotown instead of Guildford) it's because they can't find what they want locally. That's something that won't be cured by trying to keep them locked in their region.

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Fact that everyone can agree on: Developers are for this project because it ticks another box along these corridors and adds a tourist attaction to the region.

This is not a public transportation project. This is not about moving people around in a rapid or efficient manner. City staff has confirmed this.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

In other news, Waterloos LRT is doing powered testing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=46&v=sGyWWwADNPU

True, but it does not begin or end at a subway, or a Streetcar or a RT/Skytrain line....

[Trainguy]

Anita Huberman is wrong on so many levels. LRT to Langley is a bad, expensive idea. Why the heck would they propose changing technologies mid-stream? KGS points right down Fr HWY. Minimal space is required to build the pillars. As for costs, her figures are so far from reality. She needs to check them again and factor in the future costs of running each system.


Without a doubt, LRT is the best system for Surrey

Surrey Board of Trade CEO makes case for light rail in a letter to Mayors’ Council chair Derek Corrigan

The Editor,

This is an open letter to Mayor Derek Corrigan, chair of the Mayors’ Council:

I am writing in support of Surrey’s Light Rail Transit project.

In fact, the Surrey Board of Trade would like to see all 27 kilometres of the proposed light rail to be built as soon as is feasible. In our most recent Surrey Road Survey, more than 80 per cent support to strongly support the building of the “City Centre-Guildford-Newton” and over 85 per cent support LRT along Fraser Highway through to Langley City.

Surrey is growing rapidly, and as it grows, the opportunity exists to shape it into a world-class destination in its own right. With nearly 1,000 new residents coming monthly, the need for a vision has never been more necessary. The LRT provides an opportunity to consider how to manage the growth, where to densify, how to move people, and how to create commercial space while achieving an attractive streetscape.

Businesses are on board with creating an economically viable city that is attractive to clients, customers, and employees alike. LRT sparks development along its corridors, a mid-rise, medium density, mixed-use type of development that will attract both families and business to the area while also maintaining affordability.



Anita Huberman, CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade.
We have done our due diligence and read through all available reports. We have had roundtables and panel dialogues. We have had all of our advocacy team members review material and provide feedback (12 teams with over 400 volunteers). We’ve reviewed the number of technology and route alternatives that were examined using multiple metrics to evaluate their effectiveness.

The Surrey Board of Trade has taken the position that the project should be completed in one phase to capitalize on lower construction costs and LRT fleet vehicles, and the simple fact that waiting for phase 2 will unnecessarily delay needed transit through Surrey.

We are concerned that those who oppose LRT in favour of increased buses and a SkyTrain down Fraser Highway are not fully considering what they are saying no to, or conversely what they would be saying yes to, if they in fact succeed to influence decision-makers.

Three things we know will occur if there is no support for LRT:

Increasing B-line buses will very quickly increase congestion on those routes as more and more would be required to move commuters, but they would still not be sufficient to meet anticipated future population growth as quickly as the LRT on its dedicated lanes — and within 10-15 years would need to be replaced with LRT to meet the demand.
The cost of the Surrey-Langley line is nearly a billion dollars more to build SkyTrain than LRT, money that can be spent elsewhere on needed infrastructure and services.
The ability to quickly adapt to growing town centres and expand the system through the large Surrey geography will be severely compromised by putting all available and future funding into one option.
We have observed that where the SkyTrain has gone, it encourages development only around the station, not along the line. The stations are relatively far apart and the ability for riders to view commercial options is minimized. The purpose would be to move people from one far distant point into the City of Vancouver Hub.

As it turns out, this is not necessary. Over 70 per cent of our survey respondents like to work and live south of the Fraser; and LRT encourages that livability by also promoting affordable housing strategies along existing corridors.

Although the Pattullo Bridge and other crossings need to be improved to accommodate commuters, more are staying South of the river. Over 50 per cent live and work in Surrey, unchanged from 2016, and an additional 24 per cent commute into Surrey for employment.

Our businesses and our residents deserve a system that encourages growth along the corridors, the creation of livable streetscapes, and the flexibility to add stops as required with the minimum of cost and disruption in the future — as well as extending the lines to loop through the city as it ought to be. We need a system that moves people around Surrey and South Fraser, with links to cross the river where appropriate to minimize congestion on river crossings.

With over 400 LRT systems worldwide, we know that this is a system that has proved itself many times over. We anticipate TransLink to release its business case very soon, so that all can likewise be assured of the value of the LRT and not rely on out-dated documents to put forward erroneous positions in the media.

We have determined that Surrey is the destination, not a thoroughfare to somewhere else. The demand for more transit increases annually, as reflected on our own surveys. Surrey is becoming the hub of the south Fraser Region. Businesses are moving here. People are moving here.

It makes no sense to build a system that by-passes the opportunity to develop and grow a city of our choosing to meet our own vision.

Without doubt, the LRT is the best system, dollar for dollar, for Surrey and South of Fraser. The Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce has also indicated their support of the Light Rail Transit transportation system, which includes the Fraser Highway line.

Anita Huberman is CEO of the Surrey Board of Trade.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

We are concerned that those who oppose LRT in favour of increased buses and a SkyTrain down Fraser Highway are not fully considering what they are saying no to, or conversely what they would be saying yes to, if they in fact succeed to influence decision-makers.

Three things we know will occur if there is no support for LRT:

Increasing B-line buses will very quickly increase congestion on those routes as more and more would be required to move commuters, but they would still not be sufficient to meet anticipated future population growth as quickly as the LRT on its dedicated lanes — and within 10-15 years would need to be replaced with LRT to meet the demand.

I quickly gave up and skimmed through it - actually reading it would likely lower my IQ. About the above comments: oh the people who are saying yes to more buses and to Skytrain (vs all of it as LRT) know exactly what they're saying.

We're also aware that the 96B will need to be replaced *eventually* - as in it won't need to be replaced for at least a decade. The likelihood by then of it being as busy as the 99B is now is very low. Who knows what changes in technology will happen in the meantime. What we know now is that the routes chosen (which aren't being debated) are not good candidates for LRT.

[Metro-One]

The article above is the garbage I was referring to in that we can’t let these spin doctors hired by Surrey to get away with their blatant lies / warping of the truth when it comes to rail technologies.

The L-Line as LRT has its merits (although the exact alignment / design is where the problems lie, and the excellerated time frame) but LRT to Langley over an extension of the Expo Line is a complete joke.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

[B]It's clear that it would create less of a bump in ridership for obvious reasons, and if you've followed what the city etc. have been saying this is all intentional. They don't want Surrey residents hopping on an "Express" train and quickly leaving Surrey (note: "Express" not "fast"). The whole point of the LRT is that Surrey thinks its a good way of building higher order transit that encourages local travel over regional travel.

This is really your argument - you are at agreeable terms that LRT will create diverse neighborhoods via local travel to coffee shops and to H&M. That's it. Nothing more. If people can use LRT to get their coffee Saturday morning at Guildford then great. How does that seperate itself from BRT? It doesn't. It's an expensive local transit service that does not appeal to even the people who live in Central City - like me. Therefore, I totally disagree with spending billions of taxpayer money to make this a stupid reality.

Since I live in Central City, I think I would know compared to someone who does not live here when it comes to transit. I walk to work (will never use LRT) yet I would consider using BRT if distance was a factor. BRT is cheap, does not impede other modes of transport, and does not have significant disruption in service.

As well, where BRT is not accessible, the convenience of driving to the mall outweighs LRT, particularly due to time savings, convenience for me to jump into my car from the condo parkade, and accessing multiple locations via my car which LRT will not provide since it's a single vector between two town centres.

On the other hand, the benefits of skytrain outweigh the merits of driving, particularly because of the high speed service and convenience over driving. If I want to go to Coquitlam or downtown, Skytrain it is.

If you can argue and support why LRT is better than BRT or RRT for local travel using speed of service, convenience, and accessibility as your support, then you might have something. But until then you are admitting LRT is inferior and serves as a mode of transport for just local travel between malls, which I do need over BRT or my car, and as someone who lives downtown Surrey.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ What I think swimmer means is that since the ION LRT is its own independent system (rather than an incompatible part of a larger network), it's not a very good comparison.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

As someone who also lives on the 96's corridor I seriously doubt that people wouldn't switch to an LRT.

Depends on how good the LRT is and how much of an advantage it is over the 96. For all we know, a bad enough LRT might cause a drop in ridership, like in some American cities.