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

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The study's explanation is that frequencies of over 5 minutes are considered to be unreliable (going to, say, 3 minutes would constrain the traffic signal priority and would cause delays for other road users).

The only route I can think of that has buses every 5 mins or less is the 99 B-Line. The 96 B-Line is roughly every 10 - 15 mins and generally carries far less people per bus. So... why the decision to compare to the 99 and decide surface rail is the way to go instead?

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The only route I can think of that has buses every 5 mins or less is the 99 B-Line. The 96 B-Line is roughly every 10 - 15 mins and generally carries far less people per bus. So... why the decision to compare to the 99 and decide surface rail is the way to go instead?

Because having buses will not look attractive to a developer, and a politician who wants to put that on their resume saying "I built a train in a city center!"

[bardak]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The final SNG LRT business case documents have been up on the LRT website for awhile now in case anyone wanted to look them over. The two documents of note are the "Project Business Case" and the "Strategic Analysis Options", which includes comparisons of the selected LRT alternative with BRT.

https://surreylightrail.ca/DocumentLibrary

I find it amusing that they have the lifecycle cost for lrt is completely blanked out.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The final SNG LRT business case documents have been up on the LRT website for awhile now in case anyone wanted to look them over. The two documents of note are the "Project Business Case" and the "Strategic Analysis Options", which includes comparisons of the selected LRT alternative with BRT.

https://surreylightrail.ca/DocumentLibrary

The strategic options report is interesting. This is the one trying to explain why LRT was chosen and why Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an alternative is rejected. In almost all areas the BRT alternative matches the performance of the LRT (same travel times, etc.) and has far lower operating costs (in fact their expectation is that building BRT would result in an operating PROFIT of $13 million each year). The argument against BRT banks on the assumption that a BRT would be "at capacity" and unexpandable, and would have to be replaced by/upgraded to LRT at some point.

However, the study is based on the assumption that the BRT alternative is capped at under 2,000 pphpd.

The study's explanation is that frequencies of over 5 minutes are considered to be unreliable (going to, say, 3 minutes would constrain the traffic signal priority and would cause delays for other road users). However, it's clear that the capabilities of BRT as a technology are completely underestimated. Here's where I take issue:

• No consideration of different high-capacity vehicle types (i.e. 24m bi-articulated buses, double decker buses)
• No consideration of interlining benefits (i.e. routes could extend beyond Newton & Guildford termini, removing transfer penalty to other routes)
• Ignores that the frequency issue could be addressed by employing bus platooning (scheduling convoys of two or more buses together). This solution is being considered by Los Angeles's Metro Orange Line to increase capacity. Another way to justify platooning is that buses could split towards different destinations beyond the busway.
• Ignores capital cost headroom to add features like station passing lanes and aerial (elevated) stations. Where is the "enhanced BRT" alternative?
• Ignores operating cost headroom (again, $13m operating PROFIT with BRT) to double or triple capacity any time by employing bus platooning
• Concedes that BRT at over 5 minutes would cause "worsening congestion" even though the LRT would cause same worsening congestion by-design.
• Vehicle capacity used in the study appears to be grossly understated (the "planning capacity" for a bus on the BRT option is 85 passengers. This is less than the stated maximum capacity for both double decker buses (~100) and articulated buses (~120) and far less than the maximum capacity for bi-articulated buses (~180).)
• Doesn't consider offset to negative impacts if BRT is phased (i.e. delay 104 Ave portion until certain that a busway can be built while retaining 4 lanes of traffic)
• Little consideration of upcoming technological advances (i.e. autonomous rail rapid transit).

----------------------

For everyone curious about the expected benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for the SNG LRT, yes, it is below 1.0.

well that is a shitty business case. why are we doing this again? oh yeah, dumb-ass politicians being what they are; dumb-asses.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

well that is a shitty business case. why are we doing this again? oh yeah, dumb-ass politicians being what they are; dumb-asses.

Well, most transit doesn't pay for itself, so that alone isn't an indictment of the project. But Skytrain will provide better service over a longer time and with a better payback ratio, so it should be a slam-dunk IMHO. Its only downside is a higher initial construction cost, but only the short-sighted would prioritize that.

[GlassCity]

It's crazy too that they expect a King George Boulevard BRT to hit capacity issues. I can't imagine a future in which it comes close to carrying as many people as the 99 does, and it would have its own lanes, signal priority, the whole shebang!

[Firebrand]

Link from CPTDB

An artic with 120 passengers will be crush-loaded. At that point, people have trouble moving through the coach, which makes boarding and alighting take much longer, which introduces delays to every trip because of prolonged dwell times. 80 passengers is a much more reasonable figure in terms of effective maximum loads on an artic.

I’m not totally gung-ho about the King George LRT either, and I do think a huge part of it (and an even bigger part of the Fraser Highway plans) is political, but this part is actually grounded in reality.

Didn't he forget about how fucked up 104th is gonna be when it'll have two lanes and forbidden left turns at intersections?

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Link from CPTDB






Didn't he forget about how fucked up 104th is gonna be when it'll have two lanes and forbidden left turns at intersections?

104th can already be a parking lot with 4 lanes. 108th and 100th are not any better. They should have kept the 4 lanes and bought up enough property to keep the 4 lanes. If that is too expensive, then don't build LRT and stick with the Skytrain!!

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

104th can already be a parking lot with 4 lanes. 108th and 100th are not any better. They should have kept the 4 lanes and bought up enough property to keep the 4 lanes. If that is too expensive, then don't build LRT and stick with the Skytrain!!

The 105th Avenue “connector” is a joke. It’s a road that’s suppose to compensate for the loss of two lanes on 104th, but it’s just another two-lane road that goes through two schools, and once you arrive at 140th, you have to take 104th anyway. If I was a truck driver heading to Surrey Central from the #1, I wouldn’t want to waste my time and fuel slowing down on a school zone when I could just take 108th. The road is utterly pointless, only used for political gain.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I remember when the Confed Line in Ottawa was planned almost exactly what Surrey is doing, but it changed it’s mind (something to do with the Feds not bringing money to them? That was back when Harper was around) and grade-separate it entirely.

That’s not what happened. The original 2006 plan was to extend the Trillium Line to downtown at one end and take a windy route to one of the suburbs. All of the extensions at grade, including the downtown portion, which would share the same streets as the overcapacity transitway buses.

It wasn’t the Feds who cancelled it (though Baird did withhold their $200M until after the municipal election), but by a newly elected mayor (Larry O'Brien). The contract had already been signed with Siemens, so they successfully sued the city for breach of contract.

Later the decision was made to build the Confedertion line, which replaces the transitway (which was already largely grade separated except downtown), and includes a tunnel under downtown to connect the eastern and western halves.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

However, the study is based on the assumption that the BRT alternative is capped at under 2,000 pphpd.

That does seem awfully low. The downtown portion of our transitway, which runs on bus lanes on regular one-way city streets stared to have capacity issues at 8,000 pphpd and with transit priority measures it got boosted to over 10,000 pphpd. During peak periods there are probably about 3 or 4 high capacity busses per minute in each direction (divided over about 30 or 40 different routes).

[red-paladin]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4437263/forme...e-best-option-for-high-volume-of-people/

Former minister responsible for TransLink still supports LRT — but says it’s not the best option for high volumes of people

[red-paladin]

https://globalnews.ca/news/4441661/translink-boss-surrey-skytrain-lrt-debate/

“If this project were stopped, it would be years before Surrey would have a rail project.”

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

https://globalnews.ca/news/4441661/translink-boss-surrey-skytrain-lrt-debate/

Don't know if that's really a good threat. I mean technically speaking, I don't think full blown construction will start within the calendar year, so really, it's already "years" until we get rail.

But, more to the point, if it's the rail the majority do not want, then what is the difference? Having something you don't want vs having nothing is pretty much the same thing: I don't have what I want.

If what the majority of SoF residents want is a connection to/from Langley down the literal spine of the region, then getting what they want is already many years away. 2025+ before construction starts.

So, if the L line is cancelled, and we restudy it for a few years, and start construction on a Skytrain extension to Langley in the year 2022 (4 years is a good planning/money getting phase) it will probably be almost online before we would have even started construction on LRT to Langley.

So let me sum up their threat: If you cancel LRT now, you will probably get Rapid Transit to Langley (and probably as Skytrain) sooner than you would get LRT to Langley if we build some other bullshit first.

That might work on a kid, like if I take him to a candy store and tell him I'll get him a regular candy bar today and another regular candy bar tomorrow, OR, you can have a king size (lets assume king size is bigger than 2 candy bars) tomorrow if we leave with nothing, the stupid kid will probably be like "give me some chocolate now!" I don't know if that proposal would work on a rational person.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That might work on a kid, like if I take him to a candy store and tell him I'll get him a regular candy bar today and another regular candy bar tomorrow, OR, you can have a king size (lets assume king size is bigger than 2 candy bars) tomorrow if we leave with nothing, the stupid kid will probably be like "give me some chocolate now!" I don't know if that proposal would work on a rational person.

Life outcomes are better for children (and people in general) who can delay gratification:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jY_LpSH-w0

[memememe76]

As a Surrey resident, I do not think people care about the line to Langley. Not that many live along Fraser Highway. As a Guildford resident, I like the idea of having two options to bus it to Whalley or to Fraser and 152 for the Skytrain. But I am not sure how Newton residents feel. That area is so much more spread out.

Granted, I find Burnaby spread out. If you live along Canada Way or even Edmonds, I have no clue how one has the patience to bus it to a Skytrain station. And they have 2 lines.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by memememe76

Granted, I find Burnaby spread out. If you live along Canada Way or even Edmonds, I have no clue how one has the patience to bus it to a Skytrain station. And they have 2 lines.

I'm guessing that the North Shore/Willingdon Line is next on the list right after the Langley extension.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by memememe76

As a Surrey resident, I do not think people care about the line to Langley. Not that many live along Fraser Highway. As a Guildford resident, I like the idea of having two options to bus it to Whalley or to Fraser and 152 for the Skytrain. But I am not sure how Newton residents feel. That area is so much more spread out.

Granted, I find Burnaby spread out. If you live along Canada Way or even Edmonds, I have no clue how one has the patience to bus it to a Skytrain station. And they have 2 lines.

And people live along 104 Ave?

You don't have to care that the line goes to Langley, you just care that the line goes close to you and shortens your trip to wherever it may be.

And in the year 2020, the populations of Guildford and Fleetwood will be about equal. So while you think no one lives on the Fraser highway, it infact bisects a population equal to all of Guildford.

If you look at traffic volumes, 104 handles around 30,000 cars a day while Fraser handles upwards of 40,000 (44,000 around 160 Ave). I think you under estimate many people the line comes close to in Fleetwood.

On top of that you have Cloverdale (which includes Clayton), which has a much higher population than Guildford.

Compare that with the L line.

Yes Newton has a large population, but that stretches from 120 to 152. Less than a third of the population would see any time savings benefit from the L line. Same with Guildford, it stretches not only far from 104, but also towards existing Skytrain. While the L line will benefit those close to the mall, everyone else will either still take a direct bus to City Center or will end up with a longer trip due to extra transfers to an LRT that isn't any faster.

With Skytrain to Langley, all Residents of Fleetwood, Southern Guildford, AND western Newton would see a huge decrease in their travel times compared to today due to having a single transfer from bus to the entire Skytrain network (and the huge time savings it would give between 152 and King George). With the L, it primarily benefits those living within walking distance of King George and 152, and only by a mater of 1 or 2 minutes over transit today.

I think I would rather wait the "years" for something done right that giving a multi billion dollar handout to developers in Newton and Guildford and ignoring MOST of the population SoF.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

And people live along 104 Ave?

You don't have to care that the line goes to Langley, you just care that the line goes close to you and shortens your trip to wherever it may be.

And in the year 2020, the populations of Guildford and Fleetwood will be about equal. So while you think no one lives on the Fraser highway, it infact bisects a population equal to all of Guildford.

If you look at traffic volumes, 104 handles around 30,000 cars a day while Fraser handles upwards of 40,000 (44,000 around 160 Ave). I think you under estimate many people the line comes close to in Fleetwood.

On top of that you have Cloverdale (which includes Clayton), which has a much higher population than Guildford.

Compare that with the L line.

Yes Newton has a large population, but that stretches from 120 to 152. Less than a third of the population would see any time savings benefit from the L line. Same with Guildford, it stretches not only far from 104, but also towards existing Skytrain. While the L line will benefit those close to the mall, everyone else will either still take a direct bus to City Center or will end up with a longer trip due to extra transfers to an LRT that isn't any faster.

With Skytrain to Langley, all Residents of Fleetwood, Southern Guildford, AND western Newton would see a huge decrease in their travel times compared to today due to having a single transfer from bus to the entire Skytrain network (and the huge time savings it would give between 152 and King George). With the L, it primarily benefits those living within walking distance of King George and 152, and only by a mater of 1 or 2 minutes over transit today.

I think I would rather wait the "years" for something done right that giving a multi billion dollar handout to developers in Newton and Guildford and ignoring MOST of the population SoF.

I see that you have returned to this sub-forum from your long hiatus.

I know most Surreyites in the Guildford and adjacent areas don’t give a rat’s ass about having a SkyTrain to Langley, but Cloverdale residents living near Fraser Hwy are further away from Surrey’s “second downtown”, and you are spot on, since many Surreyites living west of 152nd forget that Cloverdale exists. Cloverdale often gets lumped with Langley due to its proximity to it, and even some people claim they live in Langley when they actually live next to it, so that’s why it has more in common with Langley than the rest of Surrey, one of them being that it wants SkyTrain.

I was about to comment (and by that, I mean facepalm) on TransLink’s CEO whine frustration on cancelling the LRT plans, particularly Phase II, but you pretty much summed it up. He’s nothing more than a bureaucrat under the works of the politicians.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think I would rather wait the "years" for something done right that giving a multi billion dollar handout to developers in Newton and Guildford and ignoring MOST of the population SoF.

How long would you wait? Because honestly, at this point the North Shore needs something like SkyTrain a lot more than Surrey/Langley do, and I would imagine that they would leapfrog SoF if Surrey decides to kill the LRT. Why not work with municipalities that work together with the region instead of against it?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That might work on a kid, like if I take him to a candy store and tell him I'll get him a regular candy bar today and another regular candy bar tomorrow, OR, you can have a king size (lets assume king size is bigger than 2 candy bars) tomorrow if we leave with nothing, the stupid kid will probably be like "give me some chocolate now!" I don't know if that proposal would work on a rational person.

It depends on how badly you need the thing being offered to you. If instead of a candy bar it was a glass of water and you were dying of thirst, you might not want to wait until tomorrow for a pitcher of water.