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

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not sure why TransLink would want a stop at 164th - it's too close to 160th to be very effective.

The Sports complexes nearby, probably. It would still be amongst the top 3 least used stations, though.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Say, what about using the other two side of the triangle: south down 168th, then east along 64th, then back onto Fraser? Not that much of a detour, and it covers Cloverdale much better.

No, that extends the line further, and removes the connection to Clayton, which is prime development land and is urbanizing fairly quickly as is; the Clayton Station isn't going to be empty forever.




I mean, if we're talking about alternate routes for the Skytrain backbone, I still stand by the Fraser Line from http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=231197 .


Merging the L-line and Fraser Hwy Line with a connector on 152 St rather than going Expo all the way down.

Admittedly, it's not the most efficient alignment, forcing a transfer at Surrey Central; it was mostly intended as a compromise for the 'Surrey First' types.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The Sports complexes nearby, probably. It would still be amongst the top 3 least used stations, though.

Least used in terms of the extension or the entire line? It’s usage would still be more than a typical M-Line station. *cough* Lake City Way *cough*

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, that extends the line further, and removes the connection to Clayton, which is prime development land and is urbanizing fairly quickly as is; the Clayton Station isn't going to be empty forever.

I used to ride the 502 to my high school during morning rush hours. It starts to pile up on 64th, with a fairly large group of people waiting between 184th and 188th, and by the time you’re at 160th, the bus is full. That’s why the 395 is used to pick up leftover passengers from the 502. It’s unnecessary to have more coverage to lower-populated areas when there’s already a foundation on Fraser Hwy within a 10 minute walk.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, if we're talking about alternate routes for the Skytrain backbone, I still stand by the Fraser Line from http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=231197 .

Merging the L-line and Fraser Hwy Line with a connector on 152 St rather than going Expo all the way down.

Admittedly, it's not the most efficient alignment, forcing a transfer at Surrey Central; it was mostly intended as a compromise for the 'Surrey First' types.

You’ll probably need another railyard to accommodate train for the separate line. It would’ve been integrated with the SkyTrain system, and not a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 switch of technology Surrey First wanted.

***

This discussion is better talked on the transit fantasy thread.

[Galaxy]

How about using the Skytrain technology and building a line that has the following Stations:

Newton Station
Surrey Central Station (Interlining here just like The Canada line)
Guildford Town Centre Station
Fleetwood Station
Port Kells Station (In this area could be a new OMC.)
Willoughby Central Station or Langley Event Centre Station
Langley City Centre Station

https://imgur.com/a/MF4O7vO




Just an idea that incorporates a lot of Surrey and Langley aligns it with town centres and then they could do a realignment of all the bus routes to feed into these town centre Stations.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Least used in terms of the extension or the entire line? It’s usage would still be more than a typical M-Line station. *cough* Lake City Way *cough*




I used to ride the 502 to my high school during morning rush hours. It starts to pile up on 64th, with a fairly large group of people waiting between 184th and 188th, and by the time you’re at 160th, the bus is full. That’s why the 395 is used to pick up leftover passengers from the 502. It’s unnecessary to have more coverage to lower-populated areas when there’s already a foundation on Fraser Hwy within a 10 minute walk.




You’ll probably need another railyard to accommodate train for the separate line. It would’ve been integrated with the SkyTrain system, and not a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 switch of technology Surrey First wanted.

***

This discussion is better talked on the transit fantasy thread.

Ha. XD True.


But may as well finish it here.


We need a new OMC for the extra Skytrain capacity regardless of an extension or not. It was supposed to be integrated into the normal Skytrain system (same train type).

As I said, by the time the line to Clayton is online, the area will probably be just as, or even more dense than Cloverdale.


It would have been one of the least used of the extension:

The graph seems to show 476 (!) people using the station.

That... can't be right. Either it's using some sort of scale thing I'm missing (like it's boardings/hour), or something, because that's WAY too low.

[nname]

Originally Posted by fredinno

That... can't be right. Either it's using some sort of scale thing I'm missing (like it's boardings/hour), or something, because that's WAY too low.

Boarding + alighting per peak hour. Usually they use AM peak, but i'm not sure for this particular graph...

For a comparison for AM peak
Burrard = 820 + 5570
Granville = 430 + 4270

Brentwood = 650 + 450
Coquitlam Central = 530 + 170
Inlet Centre = 310 + 60
Moody Centre = 230 + 140
Aberdeen = 190 + 260
Templeton = 220 + 90


(Note: some stations higher volume in PM peak)

[NewfBC]

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I am not a transit expert but I think the cost of the stations eats up a huge chunk of the costs. Maybe the stations don't need to be so elaborate. Those opposed to Skytrain will naturally inflate the estimate while those in favour will low ball the estimate. Until the professionals in the field do the cost estimates, it is just a guessing game based on the actual costs of other projects. The evergreen tunnel was pretty expensive. No tunnels on the road to Langley.

I think we also have factor in that land and material costs have increased since 2014. The price of steel for instance has more than doubled since 2016.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nname

Boarding + alighting per peak hour. Usually they use AM peak, but i'm not sure for this particular graph...

For a comparison for AM peak
Burrard = 820 + 5570
Granville = 430 + 4270

Brentwood = 650 + 450
Coquitlam Central = 530 + 170
Inlet Centre = 310 + 60
Moody Centre = 230 + 140
Aberdeen = 190 + 260
Templeton = 220 + 90


(Note: some stations higher volume in PM peak)

AM or PM, that's a significant amount of foot traffic for a bunch of SFHs and strip malls. Who knows what the numbers'll be once the Fraser corridor is fully densified?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

AM or PM, that's a significant amount of foot traffic for a bunch of SFHs and strip malls. Who knows what the numbers'll be once the Fraser corridor is fully densified?

The memo from the graph showed demand by 2045

So yeah, when the area is fully densified.

Note that when dividing the #s in half to get 2025 #s (as a thought experiment, there's no #s I could find for 2025 since the start date was not known at the time), Clayton is less busy than Lake City Way
Probably conservative, since more people will get used to using Skytrain, and densification, but these stations are in no way huge drawers.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not sure why TransLink would want a stop at 164th - it's too close to 160th to be very effective.

Almost all of the images I've seen show the stop at 166th (where the rec centre is) and it's 1.4km from 160th. That's further apart than the stops on the Broadway extension.

I've suggested a stop at 176th for a couple reasons. First they could put a loop there (along the lines for Boundary Loop). The 502 would be the local bus from Surrey Central to the loop, while the 503 would start from the loop and be the local bus to Langley and beyond. Also a shortened 320 through Cloverdale would stop there. Second if allowed (ALR) it would make a great spot for a park & ride, esp considering the King George Station park & ride is gone.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, if we're talking about alternate routes for the Skytrain backbone, I still stand by the Fraser Line from http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=231197 .

Similarly, you could branch off the Expo Line at 104th Ave (Safeway parking lot) to go to Guildford then down 152nd St. and on to Fraser Hwy.

At station on 104th Ave. at King George Blvd. would serve Surrey City Centre (does not need to be connected to Surrey Central). Passengers heading to Newton would transfer at Gateway Station.

The King George spur could then be extended south to the east of Surrey Memorial Hospital then come back to King George Boulevard via the Hydro right-of-way north of 92nd Ave. and on to Newton.

[TransitFreak]

Oh man I like officedweller's thinking there...essentially have Expo line become Newton or Langley Centre Spurs...

What I'd then do is re-config Columbia and have a 3rd platform past the switches on the north side and essentially remove the current two switches out of the equation. Turn Columbia into a terminus station with the one platform like how Commercial-Broadway millenium station was like when it first opened. Need to install new switch just before entering tunnels to facilitate change in directions (think someone posted a pic a long time ago in a different thread)

Millenium will now have spur service to Douglas-Lafarge Lake and Columbia station. People have to transfer anyways at Columbia so not an issue there.

I know that's fantasy thread thinking there, but one can dream.

Also like the idea of having the line terminate at rec centre for now - helps provide linkeage to a highly used city facility as well as it has space for temporary bus terminus. Would have to carve out front parking lot fronting Fraser Highway, but there's ample parking behind the rec centre that serves as overflow for now - no need to take acreage from ALR if Fleetwood is viewed as temporary terminus. Wouldn't need to replicate #of bus bays at Fleetwood - only need to relocate 320, 502, 503, 395.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I am not a transit expert but I think the cost of the stations eats up a huge chunk of the costs. Maybe the stations don't need to be so elaborate. Those opposed to Skytrain will naturally inflate the estimate while those in favour will low ball the estimate. Until the professionals in the field do the cost estimates, it is just a guessing game based on the actual costs of other projects. The evergreen tunnel was pretty expensive. No tunnels on the road to Langley.

Absolutely correct. Often transit projects make a lot to do about nothing in the transit station design. Now you can't basically just copy-paste each transit station for obvious reasons (people will get out at the wrong station) but you don't need to do what was done with the Millennium line and make each station a work of art that nobody even realizes is one. The stations themselves are a building, where as the piddly LRT stations, at least that which Surrey wants are glorified bus stops. LRT stations like in Seattle are full blown subway stations that are even larger than the Skytrain stations, for much smaller trains (60m (2 x28m cars)) but can accommodate 120m trainsets.

We can pick and choose some of these things. Like the at-grade stations are a possibility (see 29th ave station, also Edmonds), while elevating the guideway so it doesn't block a road. Then there's New West station where you literately have the skytrain in the center of a three story mall designed around it.

Like imagine for a minute that each station was designed to be developed like New West, so developer pitches in to build the station, and they provide the land, and Translink and the city lets them build anything into the station, both the fare paid area and the area outside it subject to nothing encroaching on the platform or track area.

Like when I've been to Toronto, Union station is actually pretty nice, because while you wait for your train or subway, you can buy stuff from the kiosks that are INSIDE the fare-paid area.

There's nothing even close to that in Metro Vancouver. To a certain extent you don't want anything that generates garbage otherwise it ends up on the tracks, and LIM's don't like garbage.

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

Oh man I like officedweller's thinking there...essentially have Expo line become Newton or Langley Centre Spurs...

What I'd then do is re-config Columbia and have a 3rd platform past the switches on the north side and essentially remove the current two switches out of the equation. Turn Columbia into a terminus station with the one platform like how Commercial-Broadway millenium station was like when it first opened. Need to install new switch just before entering tunnels to facilitate change in directions (think someone posted a pic a long time ago in a different thread)

Millenium will now have spur service to Douglas-Lafarge Lake and Columbia station. People have to transfer anyways at Columbia so not an issue there.

I know that's fantasy thread thinking there, but one can dream.

Well nobody said we had to extend the line as-it-is. Any of those stations can have a switch put before/after it, or a third platform added. The catch is that involves closing the station for a year. That's why you think ahead and go "well what if we do want to extend it in that direction"

Anyway, what I'd suggest is bend this the other way. Make Scott Road split off to Guildford and leave room for it to go north and south. Have King George continue in the direction it's going towards Langley, but build a switch between Surrey Central and King George to send trains to Newton. Then have the Guildford and Newton lines converge at Cloverdale, so like how the Expo/Millenium line forms a loop, so does this. These can be built separately, and thus anywhere along Newton-to-Cloverdale a spur/wye could be placed to go to White Rock/Peace Arch. But that's thinking too far into the future.

What is really needed is for the new Surrey City Council to just go "start phase 2 as Skytrain NOW and redesign phase one as Skytrain while we wait."

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I am not a transit expert but I think the cost of the stations eats up a huge chunk of the costs. Maybe the stations don't need to be so elaborate. Those opposed to Skytrain will naturally inflate the estimate while those in favour will low ball the estimate. Until the professionals in the field do the cost estimates, it is just a guessing game based on the actual costs of other projects. The evergreen tunnel was pretty expensive. No tunnels on the road to Langley.

I don't think they need as many stations as some people are thinking. Generally for skytrain they should be 2-3 kilometers apart, making anyone along fraser highway with 1500m, or like a ten minute walk.

Thus I would only do 152nd, 160th, 168th, 188th, and then just a terminus station at Willowbrook Mall. (That mall btw would be a great candidate for massive infill, see plans for Brentwood and Laughead for examples). That's only five stations. You can set out flat tracks for future stations that will never get built. It also puts stations at all the major north south bus routes. That would be more than good enough.

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I think we also have factor in that land and material costs have increased since 2014. The price of steel for instance has more than doubled since 2016.

Construction prices have gone nutty. They won't get the skytrain for the budget. They also would not have gotten the light rail either. I don't even need to look at the estimate to tell you that prices will be higher.

[ronthecivil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Similarly, you could branch off the Expo Line at 104th Ave (Safeway parking lot) to go to Guildford then down 152nd St. and on to Fraser Hwy.

At station on 104th Ave. at King George Blvd. would serve Surrey City Centre (does not need to be connected to Surrey Central). Passengers heading to Newton would transfer at Gateway Station.

The King George spur could then be extended south to the east of Surrey Memorial Hospital then come back to King George Boulevard via the Hydro right-of-way north of 92nd Ave. and on to Newton.

I like what you are thinking (even if you have too many stations) but I doubt they would have the money for that.

[BirchTrain]

I think the current number of stations is sufficient, because they serve east, centre, and west Fleetwood, west and east Clayton, and Langley.

The problem with Surrey is that it has a lot of urban sprawl, where homes are located far apart. Of course rapid transit will bring more density along Fraser Highway, and McCallum promised to pursue “smart development” to densify around transit stations.

Sprawl is why the SoF region is so heavily car dependent. After the tolls were removed on the Port Mann, traffic jumped. There is little access to fast and frequent transit to connect to the rest of the region. Surrey needs a bus network with many lines being on the FTN, like how the trolleybuses are in Vancouver. Currently, only the major corridors have FTN service (Scott Road, King George, Fraser, 104th, etc.). Contrast that to Vancouver, where there is frequent bus service pretty much wherever there are trolley wires.

Now, I’m not saying that Surrey needs trolleybuses (although that would be cool), but bus service needs to be increased and the city must prevent sprawl.

[Cypherus]

Add me to the list of supporting officedweller's plan. That looks really feasible and cost effective. It maintains Central City as the main hub while ensuring 104th and Guildford are serviced adequately as the train heads down 152th and down Fraser Highway to Langley. Sorry Newton....you're crime ridden anyway with weirdos and gangs. Take the bus, for now. But facetiousness aside, this is an excellent example of route planning the city should consider.

[fredinno]

I'm going to go agree with officedweller. The only thing that might be an issue is the fact it's now disconnected to the high school, and new, better connections/entrances to the hospital may be needed due to the station basically being in a backlot parking lot.

That, and that it looks really obvious it was never really intended to go that way.

Shouldn't be a deal-breaker, though; I actually like the idea.
Just playing devil's advocate.



It also isn't THAT much fantasy.
King George to Newton was the 2nd option for RRT after King George to Fraser HWY. The study prefers the Fraser HWY, though, and so do most other people. This is, however, before any truncation at Fleetwood, which is likely to pour cold water on that proposal.

These options are RRT2 and 3:
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...natives_Evaluation_Executive_Summary.pdf

Apparently it was supposed to go down from King George downwards to Newton, so that fits that; Translink was thinking about the same idea.

RRT3 (Skytrain to Newton Only) generally did worse than RRT1, but at about half the cost, (considering this line isn't going to Langley anyways) a lot of the benefits from RRT1 are going out the window.

RRT2 was combining RRT3 with B-line service down 104 and Fraser to Langley, costing 1.5 Billion; and achieving similar ridership numbers to RRT1A, at a lower cost. This would come at the cost of not encouraging new Transit ridership as much, and less new development land.



However, I think it provides a good alternative to the Fleetwood idea, possibly even better, considering it would be a more dense development on King George HWY.

Perhaps the Safeway parking lot could be reserved for a BRT/B-line exchange station?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Problem there is that you'd give up one of SkyTrain's major advantages: frequency. One branch line to Production Way, one to Newton, and one to Langley means about a five-minute wait at peak hour. If we're going with an "Expo to Newton" scenario, better make a separate Langley-Guildford Line.