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

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Kenneth Chan now has a story about a newly released report on the cost of SkyTrain down Fraser Highway:

SkyTrain along Fraser Highway to Langley will cost $2.9 billion, says TransLink
http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-fraser-highway-expo-line-extension-cost-light-rail-transit

The quote from the article I find most interesting is:

“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.

Thinking outside of the box, why not extend Skytrain only to 160 St. (or maybe one stop beyond it) and then add bus priority measures (either full bus lanes or bus queue jump lanes) on the Fraser Hwy east of the last station? Not only is demand not high enough to warrant Skytrain service, but the vast majority of the congestion is west of Fleetwood.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not only is demand not high enough to warrant Skytrain service, but the vast majority of the congestion is west of Fleetwood.

Then we fall into another problem, it’ll cost more to build in two phases (due to inflation) than doing it straight to Langley. Look what we’re dealing with on the Broadway extension.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Then we fall into another problem, it’ll cost more to build in two phases (due to inflation) than doing it straight to Langley. Look what we’re dealing with on the Broadway extension.

And land value increase, right?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

And land value increase, right?

Nowadays putting off building anything means it'll cost more later - it doesn't matter if we're talking about buildings, bridges, transit infrastructure or anything else. It comes down to if it's worth building now.

An elevated line is much easier to build in phases than a tunnel. I have no issue with building Skytrain (not LRT!) down Fraser Hwy to Fleetwood (either the 160th or 166th station) as density is already there and will likely increase at a faster rate west of Fleetwood (which is one of Surrey's town centres) than it will east of there.

It'll still be a benefit to Langley (being much closer to Skytrain than now) plus it'll likely mean the first section of it will be built sooner than if we wait to build it all at once.

[Galaxy]

I feel like this is the RAV aka Canada Line argument again where it's not built yet and everyone says there is not enough ridership between these insert two points. The end result is we get a second class system that has really high ridership. I would not be surprised if this gets built out to Langley and you get a lot more ridership then they projected. There is a lot of people that would ride from Langley if it was a single train ride and no transfers as the current bus system are set up. Also, the build-out of more offices in Surrey central will mean more people commuting from Langley to work in Downtown Surrey.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Also, the build-out of more offices in Surrey central will mean more people commuting from Langley to work in Downtown Surrey.

Langley also has it's set of jobs too. Someone from New West working in Downtown Langley will have the convenience of a seamless train ride to their work. This extension will create a feedback loop on the system, which will benefit everyone else using it. A transfer on the other route—especially if it's ground-based—will create risks of delays caused by external factors, and if the line is LRT, it will freeze, rendering it useless.

This line is different than what the Canada Line is because the logistics to interline a N-W route with an E-W route complicates matters, so that's why they use a different set of trains (albeit inferior to the Expo and M-Line trains). The Fraser Hwy route is inexcusable.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The quote from the article I find most interesting is:



Thinking outside of the box, why not extend Skytrain only to 160 St. (or maybe one stop beyond it) and then add bus priority measures (either full bus lanes or bus queue jump lanes) on the Fraser Hwy east of the last station? Not only is demand not high enough to warrant Skytrain service, but the vast majority of the congestion is west of Fleetwood.

Dude...I suggested this last month. Seriously. Read back a few pages.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Nowadays putting off building anything means it'll cost more later - it doesn't matter if we're talking about buildings, bridges, transit infrastructure or anything else. It comes down to if it's worth building now.

Exactly. It isn't as if the government has money that they have nothing to do with. Everything they might want to do now would cost more if they wait and do it later but they can't do it all now. They key is to do the highest priority projects first and delay the lower priority ones.

Using the argument that it will cost more later, you could say we should extend Skytrain to Hope now because it will cost less now than it will later.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I feel like this is the RAV aka Canada Line argument again where it's not built yet and everyone says there is not enough ridership between these insert two points. The end result is we get a second class system that has really high ridership. I would not be surprised if this gets built out to Langley and you get a lot more ridership then they projected. There is a lot of people that would ride from Langley if it was a single train ride and no transfers as the current bus system are set up. Also, the build-out of more offices in Surrey central will mean more people commuting from Langley to work in Downtown Surrey.

While they sound similar on the surface, I don't see a lot of similarities between the RAV (Canada) Line and extending Skytrain to Langley. Richmond has a population of around 200,000 and is heavily contested (especially with the airport nearby), and the people who argued that the line would be underused was playing politics.

OTOH, the entire Township of Langley has a population of about 120,000 (the city itself is only 26,000) and has nowhere near the congestion that Richmond had (or has).

Originally Posted by Colin4567

Dude...I suggested this last month. Seriously. Read back a few pages.

Sorry. There are 276 pages in this thread and I got way behind on it so I only went back to the beginning of August (there seemed a natural break in the discussion there).

Look on the bright side. We agree on what should be done.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Colin, remember that there's an entire SSP website beyond just the Vancouver forum. Don't expect non-BC users to check and recheck constantly.

Another previously mentioned idea is having a centre track that ends at 160th; one third of Expo trains go to Production Way, one third to Langley, and one third get short-turned at Fleetwood back to Vancouver.

Originally Posted by roger1818

While they sound similar on the surface, I don't see a lot of similarities between the RAV (Canada) Line and extending Skytrain to Langley. Richmond has a population of around 200,000 and is heavily contested (especially with the airport nearby), and the people who argued that the line would be underused was playing politics.

OTOH, the entire Township of Langley has a population of about 120,000 (the city itself is only 26,000) and has nowhere near the congestion that Richmond had (or has).

Bear in mind that YVR was only responsible for 7.5k of 140k daily boardings in 2017, and that both Langleys' populations are set to double - and Surrey half again as much - over the next twenty years. South of Fraser's next turn for transit infrastructure will take at least as long to come around. You're right to worry about undercapacity, but I'd argue that overcapacity is the bigger problem.

As for Hope, Abbotsford and beyond is mostly agrarian rather than suburban, not to mention outside of Metro Vancouver/TransLink's jurisdiction. The Fraser Valley Express bus is working fine; whether or not it'll need to replaced by a train is mostly academical right now.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Colin, remember that there's an entire SSP website beyond just the Vancouver forum. Don't expect non-BC users to check and recheck constantly.

Thanks for your support. And just so you don't think I am just a troll, I grew up in Abbotsford and most of my family lives in south-western BC

Bear in mind that YVR was only responsible for 7.5k of 140k daily boardings in 2017, and that both Langleys' populations are set to double - and Surrey half again as much - over the next twenty years. South of Fraser's next turn for transit infrastructure will take at least as long to come around. You're right to worry about undercapacity, but I'd argue that overcapacity is the bigger problem.

I wasn't referring to Canada Line traffic to/from YVR, but the vehicle traffic that results in congestion, slowing surface transit. As for projected growth, I am a strong believer in prioritizing transit infrastructure where people already live, rather than where they are projected to do so. Just look at Mirabel as an example of what can happen if you put too much trust in projected growth. By all means plan for growth, but save public investments for that growth to come to fruition.

As for Hope, Abbotsford and beyond is mostly agrarian rather than suburban, not to mention outside of Metro Vancouver/TransLink's jurisdiction. The Fraser Valley Express bus is working fine; whether or not it'll need to replaced by a train is mostly academical right now.

I was being factious when I mentioned Hope. Maybe I should have suggested extending the Expo Line to Calgary instead.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As for Hope, Abbotsford and beyond is mostly agrarian rather than suburban, not to mention outside of Metro Vancouver/TransLink's jurisdiction. The Fraser Valley Express bus is working fine; whether or not it'll need to replaced by a train is mostly academical right now.

I think having the FVX operate all day with 12/15 peak and 20/30 off peak would be the max in probably half a century if the Fraser Valley keeps growing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I don't think anybody's accusing you of trolling (seriously, you've been pretty rational throughout) it's just that tempers are high when arguing about Surrey.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I wasn't referring to Canada Line traffic to/from YVR, but the vehicle traffic that results in congestion, slowing surface transit. As for projected growth, I am a strong believer in prioritizing transit infrastructure where people already live, rather than where they are projected to do so. Just look at Mirabel as an example of what can happen if you put too much trust in projected growth. By all means plan for growth, but save public investments for that growth to come to fruition.

Got it. That said, heavy vehicle traffic is the norm throughout the metro - Surrey/Langley's Easy Rider days are disappearing fast.

I don't disagree, but the gap between Langley's potential and actual growth vs Montreal's - or SkyTrain extensions vs airports - is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. Plenty of similarly-sized cities have equally long metro lines, but I've yet to see one with two successful international airports and a population under ten million.

Closest transit analogue is Line 4 Sheppard in Toronto (as mentioned by Reecemartin), and for different reasons that one doesn't really apply either.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was being factious when I mentioned Hope. Maybe I should have suggested extending the Expo Line to Calgary instead.

Halifax or bust! Let's connect the whole damn country! ... joking aside, left-wing NIMBYs in this city are known for nearly as many slippery slope fallacies as southern neocons. For example, "If we allow a couple of towers slightly above the viewcones, they'll keep building and building until nobody'll be able to see the mountains!" or "If we do an extension to Langley, then somebody else'll want an extension to Abbotsford, and we'll end up at Kamloops!" Never mind that suburban Vancouver evidently terminates at Langley...

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

I think having the FVX operate all day with 12/15 peak and 20/30 off peak would be the max in probably half a century if the Fraser Valley keeps growing.

Sounds about right. It's an old one, but BC Transit's report shows that it gets about six riders per hour. Not per hour per direction, per hour, total, across the whole line.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I don't think anybody's accusing you of trolling (seriously, you've been pretty rational throughout) it's just that tempers are high when arguing about Surrey.



Got it. That said, heavy vehicle traffic is the norm throughout the metro - Surrey/Langley's Easy Rider days are disappearing fast.

I don't disagree, but the gap between Langley's potential and actual growth vs Montreal's - or SkyTrain extensions vs airports - is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. Plenty of similarly-sized cities have equally long metro lines, but I've yet to see one with two successful international airports and a population under ten million.

Closest transit analogue is Line 4 Sheppard in Toronto (as mentioned by Reecemartin), and for different reasons that one doesn't really apply either.



Halifax or bust! Let's connect the whole damn country! ... joking aside, left-wing NIMBYs in this city are known for nearly as many slippery slope fallacies as southern neocons. For example, "If we allow a couple of towers slightly above the viewcones, they'll keep building and building until nobody'll be able to see the mountains!" or "If we do an extension to Langley, then somebody else'll want an extension to Abbotsford, and we'll end up at Kamloops!" Never mind that suburban Vancouver evidently terminates at Langley...



Sounds about right. It's an old one, but BC Transit's report shows that it gets about six riders per hour. Not per hour per direction, per hour, total, across the whole line.

I don't want to derail (pun intended) the topic too much here, but I have passed the FVX a few times on the highway and it every time I noticed only a few people on it.

Which made me wonder, why wouldn't BC Transit use Sprinter vans for routes like that? They are used in other countries for low ridership transit.
It would save money and be more flexible, as you could add more if needed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I don't think anybody's accusing you of trolling (seriously, you've been pretty rational throughout) it's just that tempers are high when arguing about Surrey.

Thanks

Got it. That said, heavy vehicle traffic is the norm throughout the metro - Surrey/Langley's Easy Rider days are disappearing fast.

True, but I still don't see it being so bad that transit priority measures on the Fraser Highway won't help. Also, the population density isn't high enough in Langley to have a significant portion of the population live within walking distance of a station, so some other form of transport will need to travel through that traffic to get to the station.

I don't disagree, but the gap between Langley's potential and actual growth vs Montreal's - or SkyTrain extensions vs airports - is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison. Plenty of similarly-sized cities have equally long metro lines, but I've yet to see one with two successful international airports and a population under ten million.

Getting off topic, but Mirabel was intended to replace Dorval, not supplement it for all long haul flights. Dorval's runways align with residential neighbourhoods, so the airport has various noise restrictions including a curfew.

My original point was that they built Mirabel in a place where planers thought the city would expand to, but it didn't.

Halifax or bust! Let's connect the whole damn country! ... joking aside, left-wing NIMBYs in this city are known for nearly as many slippery slope fallacies as southern neocons. For example, "If we allow a couple of towers slightly above the viewcones, they'll keep building and building until nobody'll be able to see the mountains!" or "If we do an extension to Langley, then somebody else'll want an extension to Abbotsford, and we'll end up at Kamloops!" Never mind that suburban Vancouver evidently terminates at Langley...

LOL. I'm not looking at this from a NIMBY perspective. I just think that there are better options for Langley. Even if the green space between Langley and Surrey fills in, it will all be low density sprawl and not a prime target for a high capacity "Metro" type service.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by roger1818

True, but I still don't see it being so bad that transit priority measures on the Fraser Highway won't help. Also, the population density isn't high enough in Langley to have a significant portion of the population live within walking distance of a station, so some other form of transport will need to travel through that traffic to get to the station.


LOL. I'm not looking at this from a NIMBY perspective. I just think that there are better options for Langley. Even if the green space between Langley and Surrey fills in, it will all be low density sprawl and not a prime target for a high capacity "Metro" type service.

It's not just the population of Langley that needs to be considered - the population of Surrey is growing quickly and this will travel through Surrey to get to Langley.

Also Vancouver south of Broadway could be considered sprawl and yet it has much better bus service and the Canada Line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

In addition, the City's well aware that they're not exactly rapid transit oriented, and they're trying to redevelop as such. Langley may or may not double, but there's really not much chance of ending up with a failed boomtown.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was being factious when I mentioned Hope. Maybe I should have suggested extending the Expo Line to Calgary instead.

No sky train for rich tourists please. The line to Calgary should be at grade lrt. It carries more people and is faster after all.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Sheba

It's not just the population of Langley that needs to be considered - the population of Surrey is growing quickly and this will travel through Surrey to get to Langley.

Also Vancouver south of Broadway could be considered sprawl and yet it has much better bus service and the Canada Line.

Vancouver south of Broadway is still denser, and accommodates transit users from beyond Vancouver.

In any case, that matters less than demand. Transit agencies will (attempt) to put out as much service as people are using. Vancouver buses are packed even at their high frequencies. As Surrey becomes more transit conducive, I think it'll get more comparable levels of service.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Sheba

It's not just the population of Langley that needs to be considered - the population of Surrey is growing quickly and this will travel through Surrey to get to Langley.

But I am proposing Skytrain be extended to Fleetwood, so the bulk of the congestion in Surrey will be bypassed.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

In any case, that matters less than demand. Transit agencies will (attempt) to put out as much service as people are using. Vancouver buses are packed even at their high frequencies. As Surrey becomes more transit conducive, I think it'll get more comparable levels of service.

That is one thing many on this forum fail to understand. While we (the user) are most concerned about rider experience (comfort, travel times, etc), transit agencies are most concerned about cost. It is much cheaper to run one train than six articulated buses (even if the train has a driver).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is one thing many on this forum fail to understand. While we (the user) are most concerned about rider experience (comfort, travel times, etc), transit agencies are most concerned about cost. It is much cheaper to run one train than six articulated buses (even if the train has a driver).

If you mean light rail, bear in mind that it's supposed to run at B-Line frequencies - no savings whatsoever. And less frequency = less usefulness = less ridership.

IMO, the important thing isn't cost so much as cost-benefit; both TransLink's and independent studies have shown that SkyTrain can recoup its construction expenses in about a decade, but its alternatives stay in the red all the way. Assuming SkyTrain ends up back on the table and TransLink still thinks 160th-Langley really can't turn a profit with two-minute trains, there've been suggestions back in July of a short-turn track at 160th; one train every four/five minutes is still an improvement.

Say, does anybody remember if the LRVs' 5-minute frequency applies to both lines throughout, or just the combined Whalley segment?