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

[Metro-One]

So who is going to pay for that full Surrey plan??

Also we really need to make a clear distinction between “LRT” and “Streetcar” that the general public can grasp. I know there is no clear separation, but when Surrey says “LRT” people think Calgary C-Train, Seattle, Portland, etc... but this plan is far far far more akin to the Toronto or Tacoma streetcars.

Even in Vancouver the downtown streetcar plan calls it a Streetcar...

Ridiculous plan that would be far better served by two backbone Skytrain lines and buses elsewhere.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So who is going to pay for that full Surrey plan??

Also we really need to make a clear distinction between “LRT” and “Streetcar” that the general public can grasp. I know there is no clear separation, but when Surrey says “LRT” people think Calgary C-Train, Seattle, Portland, etc... but this plan is far far far more akin to the Toronto or Tacoma streetcars.

Even in Vancouver the downtown streetcar plan calls it a Streetcar...

Ridiculous plan that would be far better served by two backbone Skytrain lines and buses elsewhere.

This is a desperation move by Surrey First so that they can engrave it on the wall for future politicians to use.

I wonder why there is no concrete definition of Light Rail in North America. I know what it is; I just need to know the origin of the ambiguity of the term.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Did Surrey went full retard by shoehorning LRT all over the place in the above images? It makes Edmonton’s LRT look fantastic in comparison.

Pretty much...

Originally Posted by Metro-One

So who is going to pay for that full Surrey plan??


Ridiculous plan that would be far better served by two backbone Skytrain lines and buses elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Firebrand

This is a desperation move by Surrey First so that they can engrave it on the wall for future politicians to use.

I'd think of it more as a major corridor plan - in that context it makes sense. It's something pretty much the entire region does.

I think Surrey's pushing LRT as they're sick of waiting around for their share of transit improvements. It's the old 'ask for more than what you want, so then you can leave some things behind and end up getting what you wanted in the first place'.

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

These are cost numbers only and there are NO numbers on expected travel times, ridership, fare revenue and fare recovery.

However, a strong hint on the operating speed difference is the amount of trains deemed necessary for each option. The LRT option specifies a need for 19 light rail vehicles; the SkyTrain option requires 11 5-car trains. Increasing the operating speed reduces the amount of vehicles necessary to operate along the same distance; lower operating speed requires more vehicles, so this would suggest that the proposed SkyTrain alternative is nearly twice as fast as light rail.

Just some calculation shows that the LRT is about every 5min (also noted as the minimum design headway for both lines in SNG LRT report due to interlining).

And the SkyTrain should be every 6 minutes.

So yeah, a 3000pphpd max capacity system at opening.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'd think of it more as a major corridor plan - in that context it makes sense. It's something pretty much the entire region does.

Absolutely. The corridors make sense for the most part.

I think Surrey's pushing LRT as they're sick of waiting around for their share of transit improvements. It's the old 'ask for more than what you want, so then you can leave some things behind and end up getting what you wanted in the first place'.

I've always said that I believe that this whole LRT move has been more about tricking the government into compensating with Skytrain. So yeah, I definitely agree. Surrey LRT has always smelled fishy to me from the get-go.

[ilikeredheads]

LRT is a such a broad and potentially vague term to the point that even Skytrain can be classified as LRT if you really want to.

They are only using that term because it sounds like it's something modern and cool to the average joe when in reality it's just a tram, a jolly old tram.

My biggest problem has always been that they are the ones pushing for this garbage even though they aren't paying for it. If Surrey's responsible for all its costs then I wouldn't care that much. Hey, you want to suffer in your own streetcar hell? Go right ahead.

I don't really buy that they are using this to get the province into extending Skytrain. To me, it has always been a vanity project to appeal to real estate developers. If they really cared about improving transit in Surrey, they would've demanded improvements and expansion to the bus service.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

They are only using that term because it sounds like it's something modern and cool to the average joe when in reality it's just a tram, a jolly old tram.

You know, in terms of operating speed I'd wager that the Surrey LRT is no faster than the old Interurban trams. What someone should do is make up a graphic that shows one of the Interurban trams in Surrey traffic with a large caption reading something like "Is this what you really want for Surrey" and then an explanation below.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

LRT is a such a broad and potentially vague term to the point that even Skytrain can be classified as LRT if you really want to.

They are only using that term because it sounds like it's something modern and cool to the average joe when in reality it's just a tram, a jolly old tram.

My biggest problem has always been that they are the ones pushing for this garbage even though they aren't paying for it. If Surrey's responsible for all its costs then I wouldn't care that much. Hey, you want to suffer in your own streetcar hell? Go right ahead.

I don't really buy that they are using this to get the province into extending Skytrain. To me, it has always been a vanity project to appeal to real estate developers. If they really cared about improving transit in Surrey, they would've demanded improvements and expansion to the bus service.

So, maybe, just maybe, that means that Surrey will go with Skytrain version.....

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by scryer

Absolutely. The corridors make sense for the most part.

I've always said that I believe that this whole LRT move has been more about tricking the government into compensating with Skytrain. So yeah, I definitely agree. Surrey LRT has always smelled fishy to me from the get-go.

If that is their ploy it has gone the direction of the 2016 American election, and Translink itself now has fully released its intentions to build the Langley connection as LRT.

I don’t usually fault Translink on this but I do a little now. I understood throwing Surrey a bone for their vanity L-Line project, but at least have somewhat of a spine for the Langley extension, at least have a round of public consultation regarding technology choice.

This is such garbage now. Skytrain down Fraser and rapid bus for the L-Line was the logical choice.

What at waste of money.

And at the same time the GMB project has essentially been cancelled.

Outside of the Broadway Subway and marginally the watered down version of The Pattullo Bridge replacement we have been kind of hosed on mega projects this last year.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I understood throwing Surrey a bone for their vanity L-Line project, but at least have somewhat of a spine for the Langley extension, at least have a round of public consultation regarding technology choice.

Except for all the rules that prevent them from having a spine. I thought we all recognized that TransLink is the province and mayors' designated bagholder?

[Waders]

Originally Posted by Shift

A report on Surrey's Long Range Rapid Transit vision is being presented to Council Monday. All you LRT haters are gonna love it.

Surrey is envisioning a future 'grid' LRT network along major arterial corridors spanning the city totaling approximately 140-150km of track. This is comparable in size to rapid transit networks in other cities studied throughout Europe, North America, and Australia, with a similar size and population density to Surrey's future population.

Further it is noted in the report that the City of Vancouver is planning to replace Trolly routes in the future with street-level LRT just like Surrey's. Both cities will eventually have a grid network of LRT along select major arterials complimenting SkyTrain - like is standard in hundreds of major cities around the world.

https://www.surrey.ca/bylawsandcouncillibrary/CR_2018-R161.pdf

Someone must be dreaming. Considering how much the Long Range Rapid Transit vision will cost, it will remain a fantasy and will never happen.

[Firebrand]

The same guy on CPTDB again commenting about the same crap.

This quote threw me off:

You are calculating system capacity as if they could only use what they would have initially, which makes the result incorrect. New train cars can easily be ordered and frequency improved as is done for every other rail line Translink has. They were also leaving an option for future station extension (I don't remember to what length), and since LRT is at-grade, it is also significantly easier and cheaper to extend platforms compared to elevated or tunneled options, even beyond what is initially planned.

[Firebrand]

These LRT nuts in r/vancouver are completely out of touch of reality. What is on there minds?

The one comment that causes me to facepalm is this:

Here are my thoughts... and I expect a lot of backlash from all the pro Skytrain folks.

It seems everybody is complaining about the LRT, and saying Skytrain is the only way to go... I personally think LRT is the only way to go, and Skytrain is a huge mistake.

Everybody that wants Skytrain I don't think are thinking far enough in the future...or seeing the bigger picture. Skytrain is a great system if you want to move people TO or FROM Surrey to other areas...but is that's what is best for Surrey??

Surrey in the near future will have a population larger than Vancouver, with a very large land mass to boot. What Surrey wants is to build a center core (ie a downtown) and an LRT system for getting people to and from and throughout its downtown area, not to shuffle people in and out of Surrey....there already is Skytrain for that.

Surrey wants to build a downtown, it NEEDS to build a downtown...otherwise it will have massive urban sprawl, with a population higher than Vancouver... which will just make everything worse.

Surrey needs people living in and around a downtown core.... But more importantly it needs a downtown business core where people can come to work rather than going in a car, on a bus or on Skytrain to Richmond, Burnaby or Vancouver.

Surrey to needs to think big, and into the future... It needs to think it's thr main city in the lower mainland....because it will be one day.

I've heard a lot of people say that because Surrey will have LRT and Skytrain that it will be considered 2nd class because we don't have the expensive, "better" system, but Surrey doesn't care about that, it needs thr best system for its growth in thr future.

The city extensively researched, visited, and talked to the City of Portland and are trying to mimic the system they built there as it has been overwhelmingly successful.

Yes LRT will interfere with automobiles, but the vision is for a downtown core where people walk, jump on and off an LRT to get around... And I for one can't wait to see it happen.

Such farcical reasoning. They’re pulling this “walkable downtown” excuse from their asses trying to defend this crap. It’s so predictable coming from them.

[Waders]

Some details why Translink decided to choose LRT technology for the planned 16-km-long Fraser Highway rail rapid transit project from King George Station to LangleyCentre.

In a separate update to the Mayors’ Council last fall, Geoff Cross, the Vice-President of Planning and Policy for TransLink, wrote that the public transit authority is requesting the provincial government confirm LRT as the rapid transit technology choice for the Fraser Highway project.

.......

“SkyTrain would provide the greatest improvements in operational safety and remove conflicts with other transport modes because of full grade-separation.”

In order to be able to operate the extension, a total of 55 cars – operating in 11 five-car train formations – would be purchased. To support the expanded train fleet, a five-acre site would be secured for a new standalone operations and maintenance centre (OMC) given that other facilities on the existing network cannot accommodate any further train numbers.

But TransLink does not believe the Fraser Highway extension warrants the capacity of a four- or five-car SkyTrain train, as it projects ridership demand will drop off east of Fleetwood.

At the same time, this new section of SkyTrain would still have to operate five-car trains due to the high demand on the rest of the line starting from Waterfront Station. Trains would operate seamlessly from Waterfront Station to Langley Centre.

“For the SkyTrain extension, the majority of demand would be between Fleetwood and King George station. Travel demand between Langley and 160 Street is well below the capacity afforded by a 4- or 5-car SkyTrain,” reads the update.

“Although SkyTrain is driverless, operating costs associated with vehicle propulsion and maintenance are linked to the vehicle kilometres traveled, and in the SkyTrain scenario, larger 5-car trains would have to be run between Surrey and Langley in order to integrate with the rest of the Expo Line. That is not the case for LRT, where capacity and frequency can be set to efficiently meet demands in the corridor.”

The annual operating cost estimate for the SkyTrain option is $25.6 million – about $7.7 million higher than the LRT option. However, this operating cost is completely offset by higher operating revenues generated by higher ridership compared to LRT.

..........

TransLink believes the less-ambitious LRT option provides the capacity required to meet the expected future, medium-term ridership demand from 14 million to 19 million sq. ft. of new high density development along the Fraser Highway corridor through 2041.

“Questions were raised about the resiliency of the technology choice to any future expansion further east into the Fraser Valley,” reads the update.

“The long-term forecasts for population, employment, land use and travel patterns do not point to the need for rapid transit rail beyond the City of Langley in the next 30 years. If conditions changed in coming years, the significant travel distances involved and lower capital and operating costs of LRT would make it more viable than SkyTrain.”

Source

[Mac Write]

SkyTrain to UBC and Langley will be fully saturated during rush hour along both lines with 4-car and 5-car trains. I know the Millennium line has only 70,000 passengers a day, but once UBC and Langley go live both line will be super busy.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Waders

Some details why Translink decided to choose LRT technology for the planned 16-km-long Fraser Highway rail rapid transit project from King George Station to LangleyCentre.

Source

Then build the Expo Line: Fleetwood Extension with rapid bus to Langley until ridership increases. Done.

[Metro-One]

Biggest key points to take back:

Skytrain = 22 minutes travel time
LRT = 31 to 35 (can't even give it a clear estimate) and will also delay drivers.

Also the extra operating cost for Skytrain would be recovered by the extra ridership.

Also, I smell horseshit about the operating costs. Could they not short track every second train at King George??

Also every public opinion poll ever done by DailyHive has shown an overwhelming support for Skytrain over LRT.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Biggest key points to take back:

Skytrain = 22 minutes travel time
LRT = 31 to 35 (can't even give it a clear estimate) and will also delay drivers.

Also the extra operating cost for Skytrain would be recovered by the extra ridership.

Also, I smell horseshit about the operating costs. Could they not short track every second train at King George??

Also every public opinion poll ever done by DailyHive has shown an overwhelming support for Skytrain over LRT.

Based off of the findings in the recent Translink report mentioned by the Daily Hive, short tracking somewhere in Fleetwood is essential and should have been part of any real comparison between LRT and Skytrain. Assuming operating costs are proportional to vehicle-miles-travelled, doing this would essentially eliminate the operating cost difference by the two while still producing most of the additional ridership and revenue benefit.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

dumb ass politicians pushing an agenda instead of doing the proper fact based thing.

[xd_1771]

I did some more number crunching and as it turns out the cost to construct SkyTrain: Expo Langley have not really changed.

The cost estimate of $2.9 billion for Expo Langley in the Hatch Preliminary Cost Report is in year of expenditure (2022 dollars) which accounts for it is absurdly high; within the same report, the cost for SkyTrain: Expo Langley was also estimated at $2.45 billion in more recent dollars (2016 dollars). The cost estimates also include a generous 25% contingency allowance, which is applied to construction, design and management. Meanwhile, a 20% contingency is applied to property purchases.

The last time we got a cost estimate for SkyTrain: Expo Langley was in the 2012 Surrey Rapid Transit alternatives analysis. This analysis estimated Expo Langley to cost $1.8 billion (2010 dollars). This estimate applied a 20% contingency to property purchases, but applied no other contingencies.

If we apply the generous 25% contingency to the SRTAA estimate and adjust that to 2016 dollars, the cost ends up at approximately $2.44 billion: almost the exact same as the current estimate.

Essentially, the entire 'increase in cost' is the addition of that 25% contingency. Other than that, the costs have remained the same

So why is TransLink trying so hard to push the $2.9 billion number in our face? I think they are interested in making the public think that the cost has significantly increased. After all, in September 2017, they formally took a position in favour of LRT. You wouldn't want public sentiment to get in the way of that.