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

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

For anyone interested:

SNG LRT socio-economic report FULL DOWNLOAD (PDF, 250MB)

The Surrey LRT website splits up every single chapter into its own PDF, which I found difficult to properly review (the TL/SNG team are clearly trying to make it difficult for us...). To aid in this process I have merged all of the files into a single large PDF and it is available for download at the link above. It is 906 pages long.

Kinda interesting how they've given the public just under 3 weeks to review a 900+ page long document and made the whole thing relatively difficult to access...

Don't really have time to look through the entire document now.. but just looking at project description... this image says it all:



If you say Canada Line currently does not have enough capacity... well, this line is planned to have 2,040 pphpd initally, which is about 1/3 of current capacity on Canada Line.

Minimum headway is 5min, I guess that have to do with the planned Fraser Hwy line. So in a few years, every SkyTrain Line will have off-peak frequency that's better than the ultimate peak frequency of this line...

Maximum speed of 50km/h due to traffic speed limit... well, this isn't new to us.

Ultimate capacity of 6,000 pphpd with 60m train... Now where are the people that were saying the Canada Line's 15,000 pphpd is under built? And I remembered correctly, isn't Surrey said it will surpass Vancouver in population by something like 2041? And yet they're satisified with a capacity that's only 40% of the "underbuilt" line? Oh, and even Canada doesn't go as low as "increase" train capacity by cramming more people per car and user a different formula for calculation...

And for the people who claim LRT can carry same amount of people as SkyTrain when they build super long station.... Well, I guess that's not even an option now (even though I already mentioned a few hundreds post back that, at least the design of Surrey Central station prevent platform that fits more than a couple of cars, due to road, curves, and SkyTrain pillar blocking the way)

And then the next page...



AM peak ridership of 930 pphpd...

They either seriously low-ball the ridership, or that just shows this corridor doesn't even need a rapid transit at all. Even by 2045, the projected ridership is far lower than the 99 B-Line, and may even be lower than some local bus routes like the 20. Again, does this corridor need LRT at all?

And I love how they justify the line by saying.. "although the LRT is only 2min faster now, it will be much faster than the B-Line in about a decade time, as the B-Line's will somehow 40% slower due to traffic congestion"

On the side note, I'm glad they didn't try to glorify the stops by calling them stations...

I'm sure I won't be here complaining if this is a 165 million project... or even 365 million.... But this thing cost 1.65 billion, and that's the best they can come up with for that much money???

[Rico]

Originally Posted by nname

Don't really have time to look through the entire document now.. but just looking at project description... this image says it all:



If you say Canada Line currently does not have enough capacity... well, this line is planned to have 2,040 pphpd initally, which is about 1/3 of current capacity on Canada Line.

Minimum headway is 5min, I guess that have to do with the planned Fraser Hwy line. So in a few years, every SkyTrain Line will have off-peak frequency that's better than the ultimate peak frequency of this line...

Maximum speed of 50km/h due to traffic speed limit... well, this isn't new to us.

Ultimate capacity of 6,000 pphpd with 60m train... Now where are the people that were saying the Canada Line's 15,000 pphpd is under built? And I remembered correctly, isn't Surrey said it will surpass Vancouver in population by something like 2041? And yet they're satisified with a capacity that's only 40% of the "underbuilt" line? Oh, and even Canada doesn't go as low as "increase" train capacity by cramming more people per car and user a different formula for calculation...

And for the people who claim LRT can carry same amount of people as SkyTrain when they build super long station.... Well, I guess that's not even an option now (even though I already mentioned a few hundreds post back that, at least the design of Surrey Central station prevent platform that fits more than a couple of cars, due to road, curves, and SkyTrain pillar blocking the way)

And then the next page...



AM peak ridership of 930 pphpd...

They either seriously low-ball the ridership, or that just shows this corridor doesn't even need a rapid transit at all. Even by 2045, the projected ridership is far lower than the 99 B-Line, and may even be lower than some local bus routes like the 20. Again, does this corridor need LRT at all?

And I love how they justify the line by saying.. "although the LRT is only 2min faster now, it will be much faster than the B-Line in about a decade time, as the B-Line's will somehow 40% slower due to traffic congestion"

On the side note, I'm glad they didn't try to glorify the stops by calling them stations...

I'm sure I won't be here complaining if this is a 165 million project... or even 365 million.... But this thing cost 1.65 billion, and that's the best they can come up with for that much money???

I have been pretty luke warm about this project but try to support it for political peace....but wow, those are some pretty low pphpd numbers. What bothers me, not just for this project but for lots of bus routes is the lack of acknowledgement of bus priority. If a significant bus route is being slowed down we should be implementing bus lanes, cue jumping, signal priority ect. These things could be implemented for the 96B, if the report was serious it would have presented the results and costs of doing so.

[Metro-One]

Myself and others have brought these figures foward several times before, but were drowned out by others creating their own numbers for no good reason.

This project irks me so much knowing these dismal facts and the compete ironic 180 attitude towards the relatively far superior Canada Line by the same people who are allowing this project to pass makes it even more frustrating.

[GMasterAres]

I hope the L-Line dies please die.

And with those survey results, I now think it even more likely we'll get SkyTrain down Fraser Hwy. Quite frankly that should be the priority above the L-Line big time. The 96-B is MORE THAN sufficient currently, and the Fraser Hwy stretch is in far more need of some sort of rapid transit solution given:

1) The bulk of people along the L-Line live in Surrey Central already next to SkyTrain
2) The Fraser Hwy corridor is growing vastly quicker (by double digit percentage points) than the entire L-Line stretch minus Surrey Central specifically.
3) We need more regional commute transit solutions not niche transit.

To me truly the regional Transit priorities should be:

(1) Broadway Subway
(2) SkyTrain extension from KGB to Langley
(3) Everything else on the 10 year vision plan

Only thing they should do with respect to the L-Line is add dedicated lanes and "stops" along KGB between Newton and Surrey Central to address the traffic nightmare that is basically 92nd Avenue to 72nd Avenue every single day. 104th Avenue is fine and they could start with some queue jumper lanes at a few key intersections, specifically the stretch between 148 and 152.

That would enhance the B-Line service and decrease times.

Also regarding those stats pasted above, I don't understand the 50kph traffic limit. The speed limit along 104th and KGB is 60kph. So the LRT is restricted to slower than traffic speed limits? Seems rather dumb. If they mean "how fast people actually drive" then in rush hour it is about 2kph because of the congestion on KGB but non rush hour it is closer to 80kph.

[xd_1771]

And I love how they justify the line by saying.. "although the LRT is only 2min faster now, it will be much faster than the B-Line in about a decade time, as the B-Line's will somehow 40% slower due to traffic congestion"

If a significant bus route is being slowed down we should be implementing bus lanes, cue jumping, signal priority ect. These things could be implemented for the 96B, if the report was serious it would have presented the results and costs of doing so.

Yeah one thing that bothers me and it is a persistent issue in this report... Bus Rapid Transit alternatives have not been properly or fully examined.

Like, in this report, it's between LRT and BAU. There's no BRT1, BRT2 - not even the "Best Bus" alternative from 2012 SRTAA is taken into consideration.

The report actually tries, at least, to explain why BRT was not taken into consideration in Section 1.3. There are, however, a couple of glaring holes in the assumptions. For one, one of the listed reasons is that BRT, as examined in SRTAA, would have "significantly higher greenhouse gas and air contaminant emissions". One thing I recall from 2012 SRTAA is that it virtually omitted any hybrid or electric BRT alternatives - it only considered straight diesel propulsion, stating that at the time the electric technologies were "still emerging". It's now 2018 and essentially all of our new articulated buses are hybrid-electric, battery-electric is undergoing testing, and CNG is also a viable option.

SRTAA also didn't consider things like passing lanes, magnetic guidance, autonomous technology, bi-articulated vehicles, platooning of vehicles...

Also regarding those stats pasted above, I don't understand the 50kph traffic limit. The speed limit along 104th and KGB is 60kph.

It does say "generally based on speed limit" so it probably improves to 60km/h in capable segments.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by Rico

I have been pretty luke warm about this project but try to support it for political peace....but wow, those are some pretty low pphpd numbers. What bothers me, not just for this project but for lots of bus routes is the lack of acknowledgement of bus priority. If a significant bus route is being slowed down we should be implementing bus lanes, cue jumping, signal priority ect. These things could be implemented for the 96B, if the report was serious it would have presented the results and costs of doing so.

Aren't the pphpd numbers only approaching the higher end of what bus service can do. As most of us have been saying this vanity project does not provide any substantial benefit for transportation. It does not improve speed, frequency or even boost demand from what their numbers seem to be saying. I would assume that investing a fraction of the money on a half hearted BRT implementation would allow them to have better outcomes. pphpd numbers would probably be higher by allowing seamless services to run through the BRT corridor to other places in Surrey like South Surrey, Scottsdale, Walnut Grove, and Fraser Heights.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Also regarding those stats pasted above, I don't understand the 50kph traffic limit. The speed limit along 104th and KGB is 60kph. So the LRT is restricted to slower than traffic speed limits? Seems rather dumb. If they mean "how fast people actually drive" then in rush hour it is about 2kph because of the congestion on KGB but non rush hour it is closer to 80kph.

Toronto's streetcars operate well under the speed limit too. Trains brake slower than motor vehicles, so I'm guessing the transit agencies want to allow for more reaction time and stopping distance.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Myself and others have brought these figures foward several times before, but were drowned out by others creating their own numbers for no good reason.

This project irks me so much knowing these dismal facts and the compete ironic 180 attitude towards the relatively far superior Canada Line by the same people who are allowing this project to pass makes it even more frustrating.

You're describing someone in this thread who has that mindset, but I'm going to leave the name anonymous. (Hint: It starts with an R and ends with an N.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Let's keep the sniping to a minimum, this isn't Mean Girls.

[logan5]

Those peak ridership number are sad and pathetic. A trolley bus in Vancouver can handle those peak loads.

[logan5]

Those peak load numbers don't correspond with the daily boarding numbers.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

Those peak load numbers don't correspond with the daily boarding numbers.

Remember the Surrey LRT is essentially act as two lines - most people gets on/off at Surrey Central, and very few ride all the way from Guildford to Newton. This is different from Expo Line, Evergreen Extension, Canada Line, 99 B-Line, etc.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Let's keep the sniping to a minimum, this isn't Mean Girls.

that movie was surprisingly better then i thought when i saw it for the first time recently.

Originally Posted by logan5

Those peak ridership number are sad and pathetic. A trolley bus in Vancouver can handle those peak loads.

Originally Posted by logan5

Those peak load numbers don't correspond with the daily boarding numbers.

so what you're saying, is we should build a trolley route instead of the LRT. hmmmm. both have overhead gantry's. you could market as the future!!! "LRT of the future!!! Quieter ride with rubber tires and better stopping distance with overhead wires for the charm of LRT!!!"

[paulsparrow]

Originally Posted by Rico

I have been pretty luke warm about this project but try to support it for political peace....but wow, those are some pretty low pphpd numbers. What bothers me, not just for this project but for lots of bus routes is the lack of acknowledgement of bus priority. If a significant bus route is being slowed down we should be implementing bus lanes, cue jumping, signal priority ect. These things could be implemented for the 96B, if the report was serious it would have presented the results and costs of doing so.

As with most roads in Surrey they are at a maximum 2 lanes per side and lights are not timed to allow for continuous flow of traffic. As such even in places where you have a bus only lane to jump the cue at the light they can't get to that lane because of the backlog of traffic.

This project is a complete waste of money as all you are doing is trading a slow ground level train for a slow ground level bus system. Put it underground or above ground where it doesn't impact the already overcrowded Surrey roads and can make up time by being uninterrupted.

[NewfBC]

It's so pretty! Nice to keep all those eyes on the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4saz4VSuW3I

Ron.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

It's so pretty! Nice to keep all those eyes on the street.

Don't get suckered by false advertising - it's only pretty as long as you don't buy it.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Toronto's streetcars operate well under the speed limit too. Trains brake slower than motor vehicles, so I'm guessing the transit agencies want to allow for more reaction time and stopping distance.

Good point. So then wouldn't that make BRT possibly faster than trains given I have yet to see a bus on the L-Line route existing today that does the speed limit. Typically they do 65-70kph.

So if you have a BRT with dedicated lanes doing 70kph compared to a train at 50kph, that alone should shave off 3-4 minutes from the trip total.

[officedweller]

Of interest regarding the Flexity Outlook:

10 disappointing things we now know about the TTC’s new streetcars
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-col...-know-about-the-ttcs-new-streetcars.html

[KPELLY]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Of interest regarding the Flexity Outlook:

10 disappointing things we now know about the TTC’s new streetcars
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-col...-know-about-the-ttcs-new-streetcars.html

From the article...

It’s really, really, slow. Perhaps because of the vehicle’s length (30 metres), operators seem reluctant to go at more than a distracted crawl. Even on routes such as Spadina (510), where drivers have their own right of way, they travel at a snail-like pace. The FO appears to have a sedative effect on an operator’s brain, putting it into low gear and unable to move quickly.

Can't wait....

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Good point. So then wouldn't that make BRT possibly faster than trains given I have yet to see a bus on the L-Line route existing today that does the speed limit. Typically they do 65-70kph.

So if you have a BRT with dedicated lanes doing 70kph compared to a train at 50kph, that alone should shave off 3-4 minutes from the trip total.

dedicated lanes wouldn't help much because traffic lights is the main deterrent to speed. Neither BRT or the streetcar will be able to travel above 50kph. Even if they did, it'll only be for a few seconds before they have to slow down due to red light or a stop. From 72nd to 102nd, there are 13 lights on KGB for this 6km stretch of road. That's an average of 1 traffic light for every 461m.