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

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

An Expo extension to Langley would have all the majority of riders all going in one direction...

And that's not a problem. Build what people will use. It will benefit the connecting connecting bus line creating a better transit network overall. If it causes congestion issues good it will force us to build more infrastructure and improve our overall network.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't really understand your argument regarding a "long line". I'm not sure if you are referring to the Millenium Line, but this isn't really comparable at all since the line was essentially a U ridership was split between 2 directions. An Expo extension to Langley would have all the majority of riders all going in one direction...

From what I understand of that, it sounds like you think people will get on in Langley and ride to possibly the other end, causing the line to be over crowded and people NoF will have a tough time getting on Expo Line trains. This has already been debunked. Not everyone wants to travel to Downtown Vancouver - hell the Commercial-Broadway Station being the busiest in the system proves that. Metrotown and New West are also draws. I'd expect the numbers for Surrey stations to go up once an extension is built (even only building it out as far as Fleetwood would likely boost the numbers).

Originally Posted by bardak

And that's not a problem. Build what people will use. It will benefit the connecting connecting bus line creating a better transit network overall. If it causes congestion issues good it will force us to build more infrastructure and improve our overall network.

That is something that really needs to be improved SoF.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Indeed the Expo Line could easily become more crowded than the Metro Systems you mention. Vancouver has significant density directly located at Skytrain stations, the systems you refer to also use longer and wider trains on most lines. Increasing the number of doors is going to help but, the increase is not going to be that big, 4 car to 5 car only gives us a modest door increase. You mention that more trains means less crowding but, tightening headways as I mentioned only helps you for so long because you become very sensitive to delay.

The cities referenced (London, Seoul, Shanghai, Beijing) also have populations ranging between 8 and 25 million. Vancouver has a total of 2.5 million, and will be lucky to hit 9 million by 2075, 57 years from now. The idea that we'll somehow be more crowded with less ridership - and that we'll have built no additional lines between then and now - is a wee bit ridiculous.

As for delays, those are usually the result of switch failures, which will definitely need to be addressed.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I don't really understand your argument regarding a "long line". I'm not sure if you are referring to the Millenium Line, but this isn't really comparable at all since the line was essentially a U ridership was split between 2 directions. An Expo extension to Langley would have all the majority of riders all going in one direction...

Sheba got the main points. As you said, rapid transit is supposed to change commuting patterns, not just facilitate them.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[dcman72]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The first Edmonton Seven Segment LRV is done: http://www.metro-report.com/news/news-by...-edmonton-valley-line-lrv-completed.html

Do you think surrey trains will be the same size or smaller to the one pictured in the link? I'm guessing they will 2/3 to 1/2 of that size.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The first Edmonton Seven Segment LRV is done: http://www.metro-report.com/news/news-by...-edmonton-valley-line-lrv-completed.html

I'm still curious whether Surrey will opt for Bombardier or Alstom LRV's still seems unclear.

Along with many other questions like the most important one what's the final cost of the L Line.

[Firebrand]

I’m getting the feeling that they’ll tell us the costs once the shovels are on the ground.

[Shift]

Originally Posted by dcman72

Do you think surrey trains will be the same size or smaller to the one pictured in the link? I'm guessing they will 2/3 to 1/2 of that size.

I believe that is basically what the Surrey LRT trains will look like. Same size.

I heard from someone on the project that they are looking to bring one in for public display. Were aiming for the Earth Day festival next month, but it's not showing as being featured on the event page - so probably wont have it in time.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Firebrand]

Does that include building a new OMC?

Looks like construction is gonna start sooner than I thought. I’m not looking foward to the clusterf**k that is 104 Ave. I feel bad for the 337 riders.

[Metro-One]

A sneak peak for the future?

I can see a similar issue happening with the L-Line along its worst alignments in downtown Surrey:

Originally Posted by Black Star

Councillor pushes for fix on Metro LRT's 'greatest pinch point'


IK20170329-009.JPG by BLACK STAR III, on Flickr


City buses, ambulances and private vehicles are still getting tied up at Edmonton’s worst Metro Line LRT crossing, and one councillor is pushing Edmonton to again look for a fix.

“I just think we want to keep on it,” said Ward 2 Coun. Bev Esslinger, who won council’s support to take another look late last week. City officials are due back in three months with costs and options for tearing up track to raise or tunnel the line where it crosses 111 Avenue.

“That’s still the greatest pinch point,” she said. “It was flagged by the public and by the traffic study. People are still frustrated (and) we’re going to have the LRT for a long time.”


http://edmontonsun.com/news/local-news/c...wcm/1025abea-710e-4b39-9b0f-983d8ce66017

Also, the city of Surrey must forfeit the right to complain about the LRT after built. No one, and I mean no one will have the right to say “Translink / Metro-Van screws South of the Fraser again, Coquitlam and Broadway get grade separated Skytrain and we get LRT” since this is 100% the doing of the city itself. Surrey selected this. Let’s all remember this forever.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

...the city of Surrey must forfeit the right to complain about the LRT after built. No one, and I mean no one will have the right to say “Translink / Metro-Van screws South of the Fraser again, Coquitlam and Broadway get grade separated Skytrain and we get LRT” since this is 100% the doing of the city itself. Surrey selected this. Let’s all remember this forever.

Don’t forget that Surrey is doing the same to Langley, and the City of Langley wants nothing to do with LRT, yet Surrey proclaims that both Langleys are happy to accept Surrey’s “Fraser tram”.

I’m calling for the headline that says “Car-train Collision Causing Delays at 88th and King George” on AM730.

[Waders]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Since RFI is going out they can't announce the cost, it would make competitive bidding pointless. I'm guessing $2.5 billion maximum for a competitive bid, its less likely to overrun though since there is not significant tunneling.

The revised cost 2 years ago was $2.6 billion. So the latest estimate would probably be even higher now.

In early 2016, the City of Surrey revised the cost of the project from $2.14 billion to $2.6 billion.

Source

How much is the Surrey LRT going to cost anyway?

There is also other hidden cost that might not even be counted as part of the project.

[logicbomb]

Remember, there are some people within that believe that crossing gates aren't a requirement for this project since the trains will be operating within a respectable speed.

Think about that for a second...

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Remember, there are some people within that believe that crossing gates aren't a requirement for this project since the trains will be operating within a respectable speed.

Think about that for a second...

“Respectable speed”? How is that a 30 ton train moving at 50km/h in the middle of busy streets considered “respectable”? They have larger stopping distances than buses due to their larger momentum and lower friction because of the rails, but they appear much lighter than they actually are. I’ve seen pictures of C-Train collisions with the train being relatively intact while the car is completely obliterated.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

“Respectable speed”? How is that a 30 ton train moving at 50km/h in the middle of busy streets considered “respectable”? They have larger stopping distances than buses due to their larger momentum and lower friction because of the rails, but they appear much lighter than they actually are. I’ve seen pictures of C-Train collisions with the train being relatively intact while the car is completely obliterated.

Let's be fair, most LRTs (including Surrey's) are planned for 20-30kph. The problem is the train being relatively bigger - meaning that it can't brake fast enough, and that it'll probably ruin your day at anything faster than 10k.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The population in Vancouver is much more dense around the less Skytrain lines though, the regional housing density is heavily weighted around the Expo Line so we can see traffic on the Expo Line that would be not par for the course for a similar line in another Metro.

Contrary to certain schools of thought, Transit-Oriented Design is not exclusive to Vancouver.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Let's be fair, most LRTs (including Surrey's) are planned for 20-30kph. The problem is the train being relatively bigger - meaning that it can't brake fast enough, and that it'll probably ruin your day at anything faster than 10k.

I keep forgetting that the Newton-Guildford LRT will be at 30km/h-ish. It’ll probably be worse on the Langley segment, since that line (if it’s LRT) will be slightly faster than the Newton-Guildford segment.