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

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Most definitely, but growth along main corridors (at least in this metro) tends to follow a bell curve, with KGB/104th and Fraser currently being on the bottom. The LRT as planned would be an unnecessary luxury right now and horrendously insufficient in the future, whereas a true rapid bus upgradeable to SkyTrain would scale much better.

I agree

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

- Anything LRT can do, BRT can do; same frequency, same speed. LRT's just slightly bigger and prettier.

Hmm. That’s mostly true. The one advantage LRT has over BRT is capacity. The question is, does Surrey need capacities between about 10,000 and 15,000 pphpd (the approximate upper capacities of a genetic BRT and LRT systems respectively).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The question is, does Surrey need capacities between about 10,000 and 15,000 pphpd (the approximate upper capacities of a genetic BRT and LRT systems respectively).

If Surrey First gets its way, absolutely. They're planning to have 4-6 storey apartments along the corridor and high rises at the stations, same as the Cambie plan... and Cambie's Canada Line, built for 15k pphpd, is currently bursting at the seams.

Even better, neither BRT nor LRT is planned to reach 10-15k. TransLink's report planned for 4,700 and 6,500; Surrey's report watered it down to 2,500 and 4,800. The only way the LRT would work as intended is if somehow nothing larger than townhomes and lowrises gets built, and that would mean BRT would've been fine.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If Surrey First gets its way, absolutely. They're planning to have 4-6 storey apartments along the corridor and high rises at the stations, same as the Cambie plan... and Cambie's Canada Line, built for 15k pphpd, is currently bursting at the seams.

According to this article, the Canada Line was designed to have an ultimate design capacity of 15,000 pphpd (at maximum frequency and longer trains) but in 2014 it only had a capacity of about 6,100 pphpd (i believe it’s a bit higher now). I think you were confusing it with the Expo line which (in 2014) had a capacity of 15,000 pphpd (though once again probably a bit higher now) and an ultimate design capacity of 25,000 pphpd.

Even better, neither BRT nor LRT is planned to reach 10-15k. TransLink's report planned for 4,700 and 6,500; Surrey's report watered it down to 2,500 and 4,800. The only way the LRT would work as intended is if somehow nothing larger than townhomes and lowrises gets built, and that would mean BRT would've been fine.

Yes. I was discussing the capability of the technologies (at grade BRT and LRT), not design limitations of a specific implementation. Any technology can be crippled by a poor implication. Just look at the Canada Line. If they had done that when they built the Expo line, we would all be arguing how sucky SkyTrain technology is rather than extolling it’s virtues. Instead we can more accurately say that the Mayors Council sucks big time!

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Hmm. That’s mostly true. The one advantage LRT has over BRT is capacity..

I would say the capacity advantage is tenuous as well. Does the BRT option include convoying and having bi-articulated buses which can carry almost as much as a light-rail car?

You can make any option look good if you are comparing one technology's best version vs. sub-optimal versions of other options. The devil is always in the details.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to this article, the Canada Line was designed to have an ultimate design capacity of 15,000 pphpd (at maximum frequency and longer trains) but in 2014 it only had a capacity of about 6,100 pphpd (i believe it’s a bit higher now). I think you were confusing it with the Expo line which (in 2014) had a capacity of 15,000 pphpd (though once again probably a bit higher now) and an ultimate design capacity of 25,000 pphpd.



Yes. I was discussing the capability of the technologies (at grade BRT and LRT), not design limitations of a specific implementation. Any technology can be crippled by a poor implication. Just look at the Canada Line. If they had done that when they built the Expo line, we would all be arguing how sucky SkyTrain technology is rather than extolling it’s virtues. Instead we can more accurately say that the Mayors Council sucks big time!

For starters, the Canada line is going to have faster and more direct transit access to far more jobs, so should obviously have higher basic mode-share than a similar line in Surrey

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

https://globalnews.ca/news/4445303/surre...ytrain-extension-to-white-rock-over-lrt/

Seems like he's jumped the shark a bit here. I'm glad he's not in favour of LRT, but that much extra SkyTrain in a place that doesn't really need it is very much a politics-move and not a sound transportation-planning move.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Multiple problems with Pachal and Mehr's arguments.

- LRT has a benefit/cost ratio of 0.7, but BRT and RRT are at 1.6 and 1.2 respectively.
- Anything LRT can do, BRT can do; same frequency, same speed. LRT's just slightly bigger and prettier.
- The BRT isn't meant to be permanent; it may very well reach capacity in ten years, but by then we'll have the resources and ridership needed to remove it and build an RRT. The LRT is meant to be permanent, and so when it reaches capacity, Surrey's screwed.

I think I've said the same things way too many times on this thread so I'm not gonna get back into it, but I'm so glad you said this.

This one point is at the core of my overall opposition to LRT as a technology in general. BRT is much easier to implement and then replace with RRT. But LRT is a sizeable investment in its own right, and yet still isn't great as a capacity, and speed, solution. This means it's much harder to upgrade once it's needed. There is no need for a middle technology between bus and RRT.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This one point is at the core of my overall opposition to LRT as a technology in general. BRT is much easier to implement and then replace with RRT. But LRT is a sizeable investment in its own right, and yet still isn't great as a capacity, and speed, solution. This means it's much harder to upgrade once it's needed. There is no need for a middle technology between bus and RRT.

Then you're in for a rude awakening because CoV is thinking of putting an LRT on 41st Avenue.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-light-rail-transit-41st-avenue

On CPTDB, a user responded to another user's criticism of that plan:

I like expanding transit because it is the most space efficient method of helping people move, aside from walking. Expanding transit capacity with more frequency, dedicated lanes, rail, or grade separation is extremely beneficial to achieve this, so I support it. LRT is often the most cost efficient method of increasing capacity beyond that of buses, which can enable a wider spread of expansion vs more costly options. Transportation contributes ~40-50% of our emissions in Metro Vancouver, and to do our part in tackling the crisis, we need to displace private cars with transit, walking, cycling, and other forms of active transportation. As a part of this, we need to electrify our transit system, and moving to electric rail lines can be part of that.

The B-line will be sufficient near-term, but 41st Ave has the highest ridership after Broadway. If we are not planning for higher capacity services there, there is a significant problem with our transportation planning. We should not end up at a point where we have buses at 3 min headways and still can't keep up with demand (99).

LRT is often the cheapest and most cost-effective option to increase capacity over buses. It can be at-grade, elevated, or tunneled as needed, providing flexibility of options along a route.

Technically, LRT can operate fine at any level of ridership, but I would agree that, yes, we should have the B-line in place for 3-10 years to further build ridership before the increase of capacity from a train would be worth the investment. LRT can run just fine at many road widths that are narrower than 41st. 41st has 5 lanes in that section: 3 travel, 2 parking. Remove parking lanes, and you have room for LRT. Super easy. Note that if bus lanes are built, simply replacing the bus lanes with LRT would work perfectly, only changing the type of transit it is used for.

Link

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to this article, the Canada Line was designed to have an ultimate design capacity of 15,000 pphpd (at maximum frequency and longer trains) but in 2014 it only had a capacity of about 6,100 pphpd (i believe it’s a bit higher now). I think you were confusing it with the Expo line which (in 2014) had a capacity of 15,000 pphpd (though once again probably a bit higher now) and an ultimate design capacity of 25,000 pphpd.

That's what I was getting at. Both KG/104 and Cambie would be approaching 15k pphpd once everything is built. "Designed" might've been a better choice of words, but the point is that with their cheapskate approach to transit, Surrey First's egos are writing cheques that their infrastructure can't cash.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I think I've said the same things way too many times on this thread so I'm not gonna get back into it, but I'm so glad you said this.

This one point is at the core of my overall opposition to LRT as a technology in general. BRT is much easier to implement and then replace with RRT. But LRT is a sizeable investment in its own right, and yet still isn't great as a capacity, and speed, solution. This means it's much harder to upgrade once it's needed. There is no need for a middle technology between bus and RRT.

It depends; if LRT cost the same as BRT, or was designed to be safer, faster, or at least 99% sufficient for long-term demand, it could work. None of that applies to the current "vision" for Surrey.

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Then you're in for a rude awakening because CoV is thinking of putting an LRT on 41st Avenue.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-light-rail-transit-41st-avenue

It also depends. By saving that tunnel, does the City plan for grade separation through the densest segments (as with the Capital Line, Eglinton-Crosstown, etc)? If so, it'd likely be able to handle 10k+ pphpd, and would be working in tandem with the M-Line just 3km north of it. That might work (emphasis on "might").

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Then you're in for a rude awakening because CoV is thinking of putting an LRT on 41st Avenue.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-light-rail-transit-41st-avenue

On CPTDB, a user responded to another user's criticism of that plan:


Link

I know everyone loves LRT right now, I just don't. Not a big deal since there's nothing I can do about it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It depends; if LRT cost the same as BRT, or was designed to be safer, faster, or at least 99% sufficient for long-term demand, it could work. None of that applies to the current "vision" for Surrey.



It also depends. By saving that tunnel, does the City plan for grade separation through the densest segments (as with the Capital Line, Eglinton-Crosstown, etc)? If so, it'd likely be able to handle 10k+ pphpd, and would be working in tandem with the M-Line just 3km north of it. That might work (emphasis on "might").

I agree, but it doesn't. And it can't: rails are wires are more expensive than no rails or wires.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It depends; if LRT cost the same as BRT, or was designed to be safer, faster, or at least 99% sufficient for long-term demand, it could work. None of that applies to the current "vision" for Surrey.



It also depends. By saving that tunnel, does the City plan for grade separation through the densest segments (as with the Capital Line, Eglinton-Crosstown, etc)? If so, it'd likely be able to handle 10k+ pphpd, and would be working in tandem with the M-Line just 3km north of it. That might work (emphasis on "might").

We both pretty much agreed that technology doesn't matter as long as they're used effectively. You can take a very good idea and bomb it when you apply it in practice. Look at SkyTrain being virtually driverless since its 1986, and the Line 3 Scarborough in Toronto, which has the same Mark I cars as ours but never got the potential of automation because of the union regulations in Ontario.

I quoted that four paragraph "essay" on my earlier post because there's so much wrong in that user's post. He comes across as a Condon-type person dreaming of bringing back the streetcar putting an LRT on 41st Avenue. It won't be an issue if the 41st Avenue LRT is tunneled, but driving on the street is a non-starter. I'm not accusing him of trolling, but I only looked at his post history, and he seems to have a fetish for LRT on whatever street he thinks it's "best". While some of them are acceptable, like the Arbutus streetcar, while others like the Kingsway LRT from Edmonds to Downtown as a relief line are questionable. I don't even want to mention his ideas of the Surrey-Langley segment.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I know everyone loves LRT right now, I just don't. Not a big deal since there's nothing I can do about it.

For me, I don't care about the technology on a route, but I have a problem when shit like this happens:


Link

That's why I get ragged up when Surrey decides to shoehorn this on Fraser Hwy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree, but it doesn't. And it can't: rails are wires are more expensive than no rails or wires.

The expense is mostly roadwork and pipe/cable relocation, not the rails or wires per se (otherwise trolleybus capital cost would be exorbitant). Arbutus and SW Marine, no road, no utilities, no problem.

Originally Posted by Firebrand

I quoted that four paragraph "essay" on my earlier post because there's so much wrong in that user's post. He comes across as a Condon-type person dreaming of bringing back the streetcar putting an LRT on 41st Avenue. It won't be an issue if the 41st Avenue LRT is tunneled, but driving on the street is a non-starter. I'm not accusing him of trolling, but I only looked at his post history, and he seems to have a fetish for LRT on whatever street he thinks it's "best". While some of them are acceptable, like the Arbutus streetcar, while others like the Kingsway LRT from Edmonds to Downtown as a relief line are questionable. I don't even want to mention his ideas of the Surrey-Langley segment.

Keeping in mind that a vocal minority can shout all they want, but they're still a minority. Vancouverites and City Hall overwhelmingly support a Broadway subway over a tram, and if not the same for 41st, we'll support a partially-tunneled tram over a surface one.

Streetcar for Kingsway? Sure, once the 19 maxes out - what other purpose would it serve otherwise?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

For me, I don't care about the technology on a route, but I have a problem when shit like this happens:


Link

That's why I get ragged up when Surrey decides to shoehorn this on Fraser Hwy.

Playing devils advocate, that could just have easily been a bus. LRT certainly has issues but irrational fear mongering bothers me. I could just eas easily say they once found a snake on SkyTrain so therefore SkyTrain is bad because it has snakes.

[tybuilding]

Imagine the demand if the density in the Newton Town Centre plan is built?



Building heights to 22 stories!

https://www.surrey.ca/city-services/1337.aspx

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If Surrey First gets its way, absolutely. They're planning to have 4-6 storey apartments along the corridor and high rises at the stations, same as the Cambie plan... and Cambie's Canada Line, built for 15k pphpd, is currently bursting at the seams.

Even better, neither BRT nor LRT is planned to reach 10-15k. TransLink's report planned for 4,700 and 6,500; Surrey's report watered it down to 2,500 and 4,800. The only way the LRT would work as intended is if somehow nothing larger than townhomes and lowrises gets built, and that would mean BRT would've been fine.

[NewfBC]

You can't compare the small inter-city LRT line in Surrey to the Canada Line. LRT in Surrey is connecting 3 neighbourhoods together and to the Skytrain. The Canada line serves the cities of Richmond and Vancouver, connects to YVR. No comparison!

Ron.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

You can't compare the small inter-city LRT line in Surrey to the Canada Line. LRT in Surrey is connecting 3 neighbourhoods together and to the Skytrain. The Canada line serves the cities of Richmond and Vancouver, connects to YVR. No comparison!

Ron.

Anybody else want to take this one, or should I?

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Playing devils advocate, that could just have easily been a bus. LRT certainly has issues but irrational fear mongering bothers me. I could just eas easily say they once found a snake on SkyTrain so therefore SkyTrain is bad because it has snakes.

I'm starting to hate the whole "lol cars got hit by a train lrt bad" circlejerk. I am constipated about the technology, just as long as it's modern and efficient. When it comes to grade separation however...