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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

If the numbers don't support Skytrain all the way to Langley, then build it to Fleetwood and then use rapid buses. Once the numbers make sense, extend it to Langley. LRT to Langley will screw up Fraser Hwy permanently. It would be a decision future generations would have to suffer with.

I meant Metro Van in general. Talking about SoF specifically, it most definitely needs SkyTrain all the way to Langley and B-Lines to everywhere else, BUT aside from Newton-Guildford I doubt there's any other route that'd ever warrant a SkyTrain within this century.

For example, I can easily picture a streetcar from Scott Road to Strawberry Hill to Newton (possibly cutting into the interurban route).

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

If the numbers don't support Skytrain all the way to Langley, then build it to Fleetwood and then use rapid buses. Once the numbers make sense, extend it to Langley. LRT to Langley will screw up Fraser Hwy permanently. It would be a decision future generations would have to suffer with.

Weird, almost like I said the same thing 2 days ago or something...

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I meant Metro Van in general. Talking about SoF specifically, it most definitely needs SkyTrain all the way to Langley and B-Lines to everywhere else, BUT aside from Newton-Guildford I doubt there's any other route that'd ever warrant a SkyTrain within this century.

For example, I can easily picture a streetcar from Scott Road to Strawberry Hill to Newton (possibly cutting into the interurban route).

The Skytrain system is designed so that you can run train sets very close to each other. A Langley 2 car set can be introduced into the system easily and have 4+ train sets reverse back at Fleetwood. This would take car of the cost to operate issue. Having individual drivers for each train set for LRT also has a huge cost to it. The more frequency the greater the cost.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The Skytrain system is designed so that you can run train sets very close to each other. A Langley 2 car set can be introduced into the system easily and have 4+ train sets reverse back at Fleetwood. This would take car of the cost to operate issue. Having individual drivers for each train set for LRT also has a huge cost to it. The more frequency the greater the cost.

We're not on the same page here. I've already been saying everything you've just said for years now. Point is, as swimmer will likely point out, you're not going to get a parallel SkyTrain line within 2km of the "old" one; not when many other parts of the region need service too. So by 2050, Fraser's covered, KGB/104th's covered, great... but what about side arterials like 120th or 72nd?

Keep SkyTrain as the RT backbone, absolutely, but at the same time we need to think about upgrading some of the feeder lines to semi-RT (light rail, gondola, self-driving bike, whatever). If there's an old rail route like the interurban along the way, it might not even cost that much to build.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We're not on the same page here. I've already been saying everything you've just said for years now. Point is, as swimmer will likely point out, you're not going to get a parallel SkyTrain line within 2km of the "old" one; not when many other parts of the region need service too. So by 2050, Fraser's covered, KGB/104th's covered, great... but what about side arterials like 120th or 72nd?

Keep SkyTrain as the RT backbone, absolutely, but at the same time we need to think about upgrading some of the feeder lines to semi-RT (light rail, gondola, self-driving bike, whatever). If there's an old rail route like the interurban along the way, it might not even cost that much to build.

I am all for puting a gondola up to SFU but the NIMBY's would fight it tooth and nail. We will see after the next civic election if the Surrey vanity LRT will continue to go forward. Before any more LRT is built, we need to see the success/failure the first one is.

[cganuelas1995]

"Mass transit is for transporting masses in heavily populated areas. It is not economical to have mass transit in the suburbs. Where else in the world do they do that? It’s not sustainable financially and that’s why they don’t do it. ������������♀️ Portland has LRT and it works beautifully."

-An idiot thinking that the Fraser Highway extension should be LRT instead of SkyTrain, 2018

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

"Mass transit is for transporting masses in heavily populated areas. It is not economical to have mass transit in the suburbs.

You have quoted an idiot, indeed.

"Suburbs" is a relative term. Port Moody could be considered a "suburb", but look what they've done with density around the Skytrain stations. It's the density that counts, not whether it's a far-off residential area or not.

If Surrey gums up the works with LRT it'll never support the kind of density that Skytrain is bringing to all the other regions. The fact that the density isn't there yet is really a red herring.

[Metro-One]

Where else in the world do they do that???

Well every community in Japan, including some super rural tiny far flung towns, are all connected by heavy commuter rail / mass transit systems...

And why is the Portland Max always to go to for LRT supporters? The joke there is that with only 19 KM of track, the Canada Line alone has a higher daily ridership than the entire Portland Max system (which is nearly 97 KM in length!)

Seems to me that alone proves that A. Suburbs can be appropriate for mass transit. and B. There is a clear advantage in grade separation when it comes to attracting riders.

[swimmer_spe]

I keep thinking of the SRT folly.

The Scarborough Rapid transit, or Line 3 Scarborough, is a 6.4km line that uses Mark 1 Skytrain cars. It has an average daily ridership of around 35,000. The line opened in 1985.

It is the bane of the city. The cars are old and no replacement is in sight. The track is not the same gauge as the rest of the TTC as it is Standard Gauge. There is a forced transfer to the Subway.

The city wants to replace it, but a 1 stop subway extension will cost about $3 billion. Everyone one is up in arms over the cost and the loss of the 6 stations on the line.

It doesn't really even have it's own maintenance facility.The cars must be loaded onto trucks and hauled to a different yard for major repairs.

The cars are automated, but they are all staffed by someone.

I have ridden on both the Skytrain and the SRT. From an isolated view, they are nearly identical. The Mark 1s and the S series are virtually identical.

So, why the folly?
Because, you have a subway network using 1 technology and 1 track gauge that is not compatible with the SRT. In Toronto, it is a failure.

Surrey's plan, looks good. It really does. You are bringing needed transit to a locale that does not have it. And from an isolated view, it looks like a sure thing. 20-30 years after it has been operational, the desire for a Skytrain will be huge and, just like the SRT, it will be viewed as a failure.

The GVR needs more rapid transit. All of our cities do. If there was a promise from Translink that the Skytrain would still be built to Langley, then the LRT would be a great idea, just like keeping the streetcars for Toronto is a good idea.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I keep thinking of the SRT folly.

The Scarborough Rapid transit, or Line 3 Scarborough, is a 6.4km line that uses Mark 1 Skytrain cars. It has an average daily ridership of around 35,000. The line opened in 1985.

It is the bane of the city. The cars are old and no replacement is in sight. The track is not the same gauge as the rest of the TTC as it is Standard Gauge. There is a forced transfer to the Subway.

The city wants to replace it, but a 1 stop subway extension will cost about $3 billion. Everyone one is up in arms over the cost and the loss of the 6 stations on the line.

It doesn't really even have it's own maintenance facility.The cars must be loaded onto trucks and hauled to a different yard for major repairs.

The cars are automated, but they are all staffed by someone.

I have ridden on both the Skytrain and the SRT. From an isolated view, they are nearly identical. The Mark 1s and the S series are virtually identical.

So, why the folly?
Because, you have a subway network using 1 technology and 1 track gauge that is not compatible with the SRT. In Toronto, it is a failure.

Surrey's plan, looks good. It really does. You are bringing needed transit to a locale that does not have it. And from an isolated view, it looks like a sure thing. 20-30 years after it has been operational, the desire for a Skytrain will be huge and, just like the SRT, it will be viewed as a failure.

The GVR needs more rapid transit. All of our cities do. If there was a promise from Translink that the Skytrain would still be built to Langley, then the LRT would be a great idea, just like keeping the streetcars for Toronto is a good idea.

So kind of like Canada Line vs Expo/Original line in Vancouver? I hardly think that will ever be considered a failure even though they are 2 different technologies (different tracks, etc) and completely separate.

Ron.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

"Mass transit is for transporting masses in heavily populated areas. It is not economical to have mass transit in the suburbs. Where else in the world do they do that? It’s not sustainable financially and that’s why they don’t do it. ������������♀️ Portland has LRT and it works beautifully."

-An idiot thinking that the Fraser Highway extension should be LRT instead of SkyTrain, 2018

The same idiot said the same thing for the Evergreen LRT because by their logic, the Tri-Cities are suburbs, and it’s not economical or even detrimental to the development of these cities.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You have quoted an idiot, indeed.

"Suburbs" is a relative term. Port Moody could be considered a "suburb", but look what they've done with density around the Skytrain stations. It's the density that counts, not whether it's a far-off residential area or not.

If Surrey gums up the works with LRT it'll never support the kind of density that Skytrain is bringing to all the other regions. The fact that the density isn't there yet is really a red herring.

I know someone who thinks all the concrete on Fraser Hwy will “divide” Surrey in half, and he compares them to Hwy 1 that divides Fraser Heights from Guildford and Willoughby from Walnut Grove. He said it because these types of infrastructures are in suburbia. This is non-sequitur reasoning.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

So kind of like Canada Line vs Expo/Original line in Vancouver? I hardly think that will ever be considered a failure even though they are 2 different technologies (different tracks, etc) and completely separate.

Ron.

The difference is that the Canada line goes downtown. The SRT doesn't.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The difference is that the Canada line goes downtown. The SRT doesn't.

Yeah, the difference is that the Canada Line is a separate route.
As it exists, the SRT is really a continuation of the Bloor Danforth line with a forced transfer.
If the SRT were built out as a system that fed into Scarborough Town Centre with a connection to the Bloor Danforth line, it may not be as big an issue, but as it is now, it is an orphan that was never built out to its potential.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, the difference is that the Canada Line is a separate route.
As it exists, the SRT is really a continuation of the Bloor Danforth line with a forced transfer.
If the SRT were built out as a system that fed into Scarborough Town Centre with a connection to the Bloor Danforth line, it may not be as big an issue, but as it is now, it is an orphan that was never built out to its potential.

So exactly what Surrey wants for Fraser Hwy - a continuation with a forced transfer between Skytrain and LRT.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, the difference is that the Canada Line is a separate route.
As it exists, the SRT is really a continuation of the Bloor Danforth line with a forced transfer.
If the SRT were built out as a system that fed into Scarborough Town Centre with a connection to the Bloor Danforth line, it may not be as big an issue, but as it is now, it is an orphan that was never built out to its potential.

You could say, that in terms of direction, the Canada Line and the SeaBus are continuations of each other with forced transfers.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

You could say, that in terms of direction, the Canada Line and the SeaBus are continuations of each other with forced transfers.

With the Canada Line, you've got the Pacific Ocean in the way. What's blocking the Expo or Bloor-Danforth, other than the politicians?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I keep thinking of the SRT folly.

The Scarborough Rapid transit, or Line 3 Scarborough, is a 6.4km line that uses Mark 1 Skytrain cars. It has an average daily ridership of around 35,000. The line opened in 1985.

It is the bane of the city. The cars are old and no replacement is in sight. The track is not the same gauge as the rest of the TTC as it is Standard Gauge. There is a forced transfer to the Subway.

The city wants to replace it, but a 1 stop subway extension will cost about $3 billion. Everyone one is up in arms over the cost and the loss of the 6 stations on the line.

It doesn't really even have it's own maintenance facility.The cars must be loaded onto trucks and hauled to a different yard for major repairs.

The cars are automated, but they are all staffed by someone.

I have ridden on both the Skytrain and the SRT. From an isolated view, they are nearly identical. The Mark 1s and the S series are virtually identical.

So, why the folly?
Because, you have a subway network using 1 technology and 1 track gauge that is not compatible with the SRT. In Toronto, it is a failure.

Surrey's plan, looks good. It really does. You are bringing needed transit to a locale that does not have it. And from an isolated view, it looks like a sure thing. 20-30 years after it has been operational, the desire for a Skytrain will be huge and, just like the SRT, it will be viewed as a failure.

The GVR needs more rapid transit. All of our cities do. If there was a promise from Translink that the Skytrain would still be built to Langley, then the LRT would be a great idea, just like keeping the streetcars for Toronto is a good idea.

the SRT was originally supposed to run streetcars using a design that became familiar as the CLRV. Kennedy station still has the streetcar loop tracks designed for this system. The Davis gov't at the time owned ICTS and needed a showcase system to demonstrate their product, so before the SRT opened it was converted to use the ICTS Mk I cars instead. All the platforms were rebuilt to become high-level platforms for the ICTS (you can spot some areas at stations where the original streetcar CLRV low-level platforms were completed before being rebuilt to high platforms for the ICTS cars)

the streetcar loop at Kennedy proved to be unable to turn ICTS trains because of its small radius, so it was abandoned (the SRT train simply changes direction at Kennedy - as we do at all terminii)


as part of the "what to do with the SRT?" process in recent years, there was a proposal to extend the new Eglington streetcar line up from the street and join it to the SRT level (cutting though the abandoned loop), change all the SRT stations back to low-level platforms for streetcars, and extend the new SRT-Eglinton line to U of T Scarboro campus

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

With the Canada Line, you've got the Pacific Ocean in the way. What's blocking the Expo or Bloor-Danforth, other than the politicians?

You could do a major renovation of Waterfront Station and do a tunnel to the North Shore, if you remove the idea of things costing money.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

You could do a major renovation of Waterfront Station and do a tunnel to the North Shore, if you remove the idea of things costing money.

the royalties overflowing the BC gov't coffers from all the LNG plants were supposed to pay for things like this

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The Harris gov't at the time owned ICTS and needed a showcase system to demonstrate their product, so before the SRT opened it was converted to use the ICTS Mk I cars instead.

Minor correction, it was the Bill Davis government in the 80s, not the Mike Harris government of the 90s.