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

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't know if you were around then, but it was built by Glen Clark's NDP government, through a bunch of NDP ridings, including our friend Derek Corrigan who promptly said "fuck you, I've got mine" after Burnaby got 2 Skytrain lines.

They cheaped out in terms of the length of the route. It is the most useless part of the bigger picture, which was an E-W line from UBC to the Tri-Cities. So basically we built the dumbest 3rd of the line, and now (Evergreen) the middle 3rd, and we are bickering over building the most important portion (Broadway).

I don't see where that 104.2k figure comes from, unless you are adding all Evergreen stations. However it's clear the M/E-Line continues to lag significantly behind the Expo Line in terms of ridership. I'm not arguing it should not have been built, to be clear.

The Canada Line beats it handily, which should have been an obvious conclusion given it's layout.

The problem with Metro Van is a lack of vision as a whole region regarding transportation projects, except for the Expo Line which was purpose built for Expo 86 and went through many communities. The Surrey LRT is a perfect example of a pet project that didn't have the region in mind. Mayors should not be deciding what project to do next because they naturally all have self interest for their own cities. A regional transportation board should govern the whole region and build what is best. The Mayor's council ( as it is) is dysfunctional. An election of new people can change everything as we are witnessing right now.

[Metro-One]

True, we are just lucky that this time the newly elected people have the right idea.

The last two pages have been a chuckle though. Lots of borderline fear mongering and extreme pessimism.

First no level of government will dare transfer that 1.65 billion dollars to a project outside of Surrey. That is complete political suicide.

In the end we will have one project being built for current demands (UBC) and one shaping growth (Skytrain to Langley) which are both needed IMO given our housing costs.

The L-Line will be best served as a rapid bus until it has the ridership for rail, at which point Skytrain with a potential subway segment through downtown Surrey will be the far better option that the original LRT proposed.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Some of that extra Billion may come from only having to build one OMC centre for the Millenium line extension UBC and Surrey Extensions as well as the space allocation for the new train sets that are being delivered as we speak and into the better part of 2019. Translink was going to have to build a few OMC's especially if that LRT plan went ahead. >snip<

the extension to langley may seem to need an OMC at the langley terminus, but perhaps only needs a cheaper lay-up yard nearby. a train scheduled for maintenance can dead-head to the existing edmonds OMC and then put back into revenue service (these are all on the expo line, so it shouldnt be too hard)

if SNG is revived as SkyTrain, the former OMC for LRT could be dropped or changed to a lay-up yard for skytrain too (with maintenance also done at edmonds omc)

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

the extension to langley may seem to need an OMC at the langley terminus, but perhaps only needs a cheaper lay-up yard nearby. a train scheduled for maintenance can dead-head to the existing edmonds OMC and then put back into revenue service (these are all on the expo line, so it shouldnt be too hard)

if SNG is revived as SkyTrain, the former OMC for LRT could be dropped or changed to a lay-up yard for skytrain too (with maintenance also done at edmonds omc)

I think the best way to go about this is to have a transportation design consultant come up with some options for how far the 1.6B will take the Skytrain along Fraser Hwy using least/most expensive options. It has to be independent because Translink overestimates most things depending on what their agenda is. With no new money on the table, Langley may not be feasible until Phase 3 which by the way, was already approved as the next big project according to the 10 year plan.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

..., so there's nothing stopping Newton or Guildford from proceeding with their redevelopment plans anyway.

Agreed. Just look at how much Coquitlam built up before the Evergreen Line.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Don't politicians live for pissing contests?

There's nothing to say a Skytrain line to the North Shore would have to be tunnelled - it could just as easily be a bridge (we already have two Skytrain bridges) near one of the existing car bridges. It would still be crazy expensive.

It has to be tunneled in one way or another, even if it's going to First Narrows; the line would likely be bored under, say, Alberni St., and then continue north to Broncton point- at that point, you may as well stay underground while you're already there. (Also, contrary to what I say in the thread, Park Royal overall lacks the larger demand from the larger densified area around Lonsdale Quay)
Here is the thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=139991&page=815

Really, there simply are no easy places to build it (that are also good places to build it). North Vancouver is going to continue being really bitter over lack of proper transit for the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by Trainguy

The problem with Metro Van is a lack of vision as a whole region regarding transportation projects, except for the Expo Line which was purpose built for Expo 86 and went through many communities. The Surrey LRT is a perfect example of a pet project that didn't have the region in mind. Mayors should not be deciding what project to do next because they naturally all have self interest for their own cities. A regional transportation board should govern the whole region and build what is best. The Mayor's council ( as it is) is dysfunctional. An election of new people can change everything as we are witnessing right now.

Well, to be fair, the counterargument is that it'd be Translink taking tax money and bestowing transit projects without representation. Add representation, and you have the same problems as the Mayors council.

Having tons of municipalities is great, they all compete with each other. Unfortunately, they also all compete with each other...

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed. Just look at how much Coquitlam built up before the Evergreen Line.

TBH, everyone knew the Evergreen Line was going to be the next big thing after the Canada Line. After the Fleetwood extension? There's plenty of other options that would arguably make more sense for Surrey.

Plus, it's all part of Surrey. The Fleetwood extension will give Surrey plenty of land to densify into.

[officedweller]

The L-line in Surrey has been part of the Regional Growth Strategy since the 1996 Livable Regional Strategic Plan.
It's not going away in some form or another as a corridor.

1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan:

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/LRSP.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't know if you were around then, but it was built by Glen Clark's NDP government, through a bunch of NDP ridings, including our friend Derek Corrigan who promptly said "fuck you, I've got mine" after Burnaby got 2 Skytrain lines.

They cheaped out in terms of the length of the route. It is the most useless part of the bigger picture, which was an E-W line from UBC to the Tri-Cities. So basically we built the dumbest 3rd of the line, and now (Evergreen) the middle 3rd, and we are bickering over building the most important portion (Broadway).

Yes, though not old enough to understand what an ALRT was.

Technically, there were ideas about extending it further. Somehow, the plan on the left got cancelled and the one on the right only had Phase 1 (the 2002 M-Line) finished; I'll leave the political motives for the rest of the forum to pick apart. Still, I'd like to point out that Brentwood, Gilmore and Lougheed are pulling their weight just fine.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't see where that 104.2k figure comes from, unless you are adding all Evergreen stations. However it's clear the M/E-Line continues to lag significantly behind the Expo Line in terms of ridership. I'm not arguing it should not have been built, to be clear.

The Canada Line beats it handily, which should have been an obvious conclusion given its layout.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

^ I'm supportive of Skytrain to Langley, but I'm not seeing the 104k daily ridership on the Evergreen Line either. If I add up all the boardings at Evergreen Line stations and double it (to account for passengers getting off at those stations), I get about 36000 per day. For the entire Millennium Line, I get about 126.4 K per weekday (not including Commercial-Broadway boardings that transfer at Lougheed station to the Expo Line)

Note to self, Passenger Volumes are per segment and often count riders twice or more. Yeah, it's 34-36k daily.

If it's any more useful, fredinno found some peak hour projections a while back. King George, 152nd, 180th and Langley City all have traffic matching or well exceeding Coq Central; the rest would be similar to Moody or Inlet Centre.

[flipper316]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/linda-hepner-exit-interview-1.4894424

Hope we never hear from her again.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If it's any more useful, fredinno found some peak hour projections a while back. King George, 152nd, 180th and Langley City all have traffic matching or well exceeding Coq Central; the rest would be similar to Moody or Inlet Centre.

As a note, it's 2040 numbers...
SOF is less densified than Coq. Central, TBH. The land is largely prime redevelopment SFH sprawl/older commercial buildings along the transit corridors, so it's not that bad.


I had an entire page of replies, I posted it, and it vanished...

The L-line in Surrey has been part of the Regional Growth Strategy since the 1996 Livable Regional Strategic Plan.
It's not going away in some form or another as a corridor.

I'm pretty sure that was replaced by the Regional Growth Strategy: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MapB1.pdf
which details no distinction between rail or bus rapid transit on that corridor. It's far from a guarantee for Newton that Phase 3/4 funding will arrive any time soon; unless Translink goes out and says Newton was the priority (rather than Langley) in SOF.

Which would piss off a lot of Langley voters, so no.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I'm pretty sure that was replaced by the Regional Growth Strategy: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MapB1.pdf
which details no distinction between rail or bus rapid transit on that corridor. It's far from a guarantee for Newton that Phase 3/4 funding will arrive any time soon; unless Translink goes out and says Newton was the priority (rather than Langley) in SOF.

Which would piss off a lot of Langley voters, so no.

The LRSP transit maps basically disappeared from the Regional Growth Strategy because the former were pre-TransLink.

After TransLink was formed, GVRD/Metro Vancouver deferred to TransLink's planning, would still be based on the same corridors.
The L-Line or Fraser Line are just shifting in priority, not disappearing.

I think the LRSP was less political than transit planning is nowadays
- so that's my guess why the TransLink maps inserted into the RGS do not specify future routes the way the LRSP did.
Under the LRSP, the planners / engineers at GVRD planned out the corridors - not the politicians.

[Likewise, under the LRSP/RGS, the planners had dictated that Richmond was not supposed to densify because of the earthquake risks. Growth would be confined to areas over bedrock - the "Growth Concentration Area". Politics ensued, Richmond objected, stalled passage of the RGS for a while and was added. I think it's now called the Urban Containment Boundary.]

Remember that that Phase II of the Millennium Line (Vancouver West and Evergreen) would have been built 15 years ago if the Liberals hadn't done their core review and shifted funding priorities from the NDP's plans.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The LRSP transit maps basically disappeared from the Regional Growth Strategy because the former were pre-TransLink.

After TransLink was formed, GVRD/Metro Vancouver deferred to TransLink's planning, would still be based on the same corridors.
The L-Line or Fraser Line are just shifting in priority, not disappearing.

I think the LRSP was less political than transit planning is nowadays
- so that's my guess why the TransLink maps inserted into the RGS do not specify future routes the way the LRSP did.
Under the LRSP, the planners / engineers at GVRD planned out the corridors - not the politicians.

[Likewise, under the LRSP/RGS, the planners had dictated that Richmond was not supposed to densify because of the earthquake risks. Growth would be confined to areas over bedrock - the "Growth Concentration Area". Politics ensued, Richmond objected, stalled passage of the RGS for a while and was added. I think it's now called the Urban Containment Boundary.]

Remember that that Phase II of the Millennium Line (Vancouver West and Evergreen) would have been built 15 years ago if the Liberals hadn't done their core review and shifted funding priorities from the NDP's plans.

This: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...-of-Fraser-Area-Transit-Plan-Phase-1.pdf
is what I found of Translink's plans. It only goes up to 2031, and doesn't specify the technology used in any of the corridors; it doesn't seem like it has any more information other than what we already know (Skytrain to UBC, BRT or RRT on the L-line or Fraser Hwy (and that the Interurban corridor was not deemed important for Transit by Translink- I guess because it winds around in a way that misses a lot of the important developmental/non-industrial lands).

To be fair, Translink likes the L-line corridor (higher priority) more than the Fraser Hwy alignment, but since it seems like the Skytrain is going to Fleetwood instead, that put a big wrench in the original plan. Maybe you're right, but it's still no guarantee; Translink doesn't seem to work with long 'master plans' like the GVRD did, preferring to leave the future open for changes in politics and developmental conditions.


Also, Coq. Central had the WCE Stations to densify around while it waited for the Evergreen Line. Newton will have nothing; no guarantee it will have RRT in the foreseeable future, no Commuter Rail; only a B-line, just like Guildford.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, Coq. Central had the WCE Stations to densify around while it waited for the Evergreen Line. Newton will have nothing; no guarantee it will have RRT in the foreseeable future, no Commuter Rail; only a B-line, just like Guildford.

It's not a simple "train = density" equation. The lack of one hasn't stopped Broadway or North Van from densifying.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

This: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...-of-Fraser-Area-Transit-Plan-Phase-1.pdf
is what I found of Translink's plans. It only goes up to 2031, and doesn't specify the technology used in any of the corridors; it doesn't seem like it has any more information other than what we already know (Skytrain to UBC, BRT or RRT on the L-line or Fraser Hwy (and that the Interurban corridor was not deemed important for Transit by Translink- I guess because it winds around in a way that misses a lot of the important developmental/non-industrial lands).

To be fair, Translink likes the L-line corridor (higher priority) more than the Fraser Hwy alignment, but since it seems like the Skytrain is going to Fleetwood instead, that put a big wrench in the original plan. Maybe you're right, but it's still no guarantee; Translink doesn't seem to work with long 'master plans' like the GVRD did, preferring to leave the future open for changes in politics and developmental conditions.


Also, Coq. Central had the WCE Stations to densify around while it waited for the Evergreen Line. Newton will have nothing; no guarantee it will have RRT in the foreseeable future, no Commuter Rail; only a B-line, just like Guildford.

Thanks for the link.

I think the difference between the LRSP and the TransLink plans are that the LRSP plans were visioned without thought to funding
(the corridors say ICTS or bus rapid transit), whereas the TransLink plans factor in limited funding.
So the LRSP plans would seem to be less compromised (by funding limitations) and more service-oriented (wish list).

Interesting that the SkyTrain Visioning map (2007) has a Scott Road line.


https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...-of-Fraser-Area-Transit-Plan-Phase-1.pdf

Re: the comments on the visioning map: The funny thing is that if you build the single corridor SkyTrain lines, the buses will feed into it and you will still need to create a frequent network to support the SkyTrain
- and that SkyTrain map seems to have very good coverage with a Scott Road line.

[Trainguy]

Taking the line as far as Fleetwood 164/168th won't require any extra cars or service centres. They can use 4 car sets or even 2 car sets to reach Fleetwood for now until demand requires it. Mind you, the buses traveling east on Fraser Hwy are always jammed packed, a least during rush hour. A ride on Skytrain will cut down on travel time considerably since Fraser Hwy can be congested. Will be interesting to see how the logistics pan out.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Taking the line as far as Fleetwood 164/168th won't require any extra cars or service centres. They can use 4 car sets or even 2 car sets to reach Fleetwood for now until demand requires it. Mind you, the buses traveling east on Fraser Hwy are always jammed packed, a least during rush hour. A ride on Skytrain will cut down on travel time considerably since Fraser Hwy can be congested. Will be interesting to see how the logistics pan out.

How would that doable if the rest of Expo line is 4/5 trains?

The only thing they could do is run 1/3 trains to Fleetwood, 1/3 terminates at King George, and 1/3 to Production during peak, and 1/2 Production 1/2 Fleetwood off-peak. This will make it a flat 6min headway at Fleetwood throughout the day.

But then, the cost per train is probably cheaper if they combine their order with the Broadway extension. Even cheaper if they also combine with the MkI replacement that's due in 2026.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by nname

How would that doable if the rest of Expo line is 4/5 trains?

The only thing they could do is run 1/3 trains to Fleetwood, 1/3 terminates at King George, and 1/3 to Production during peak, and 1/2 Production 1/2 Fleetwood off-peak. This will make it a flat 6min headway at Fleetwood throughout the day.

But then, the cost per train is probably cheaper if they combine their order with the Broadway extension. Even cheaper if they also combine with the MkI replacement that's due in 2026.

I would go a step further. I would terminate 1/3 at Scott Road and send them back downtown. 1/3 could go all the way to Fleetwood. Skytrain staff can easily make changes throughout the day switching between peak and off peak times. All that matters is giving people good service during higher demand times. That is what makes Skytrain so good... lots of flexibility.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I would go a step further. I would terminate 1/3 at Scott Road and send them back downtown. 1/3 could go all the way to Fleetwood.

Except that Surrey Central (12,400 average weekday boardings) is a much busier station than Scott Road (8,700 average weekday boardings). While I would expect some of Surrey Central's numbers to drop with the Expo Line extended out to Fleetwood, I doubt it would be 4,000 a day.

[nname]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks for the link.

I think the difference between the LRSP and the TransLink plans are that the LRSP plans were visioned without thought to funding
(the corridors say ICTS or bus rapid transit), whereas the TransLink plans factor in limited funding.
So the LRSP plans would seem to be less compromised (by funding limitations) and more service-oriented (wish list).

Interesting that the SkyTrain Visioning map (2007) has a Scott Road line.


https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...-of-Fraser-Area-Transit-Plan-Phase-1.pdf

I think this map means, out of 24 workshops, only 1 group favor SkyTrain in any of the alignment marked yellow.

But then, the key is that there is not enough supply (money) to build all 3 lines as SkyTrain, but there is for LRT, so most of the group went for LRT.

Here is the conversion ratio used for the exercise:
1 BRT = 1.5 Frequent Bus
1 LRT = 3 BRT
1 RRT = 5 BRT

But we all know that ratio isn't even remotely close to what's the actual cost... either BRT cost way too much, or LRT cost too little

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by nname

I think this map means, out of 24 workshops, only 1 group favor SkyTrain in any of the alignment marked yellow.

But then, the key is that there is not enough supply (money) to build all 3 lines as SkyTrain, but there is for LRT, so most of the group went for LRT.

Here is the conversion ratio used for the exercise:
1 BRT = 1.5 Frequent Bus
1 LRT = 3 BRT
1 RRT = 5 BRT

But we all know that ratio isn't even remotely close to what's the actual cost... either BRT cost way too much, or LRT cost too little

Admittedly I skimmed it, but I think it was rigged. They were given a set amount of "budget" thus that's why those results came up, but you also need to consider the purpose was to engage with people to ask where they would put those transit lines. So if you have twice as many "LRT" strings than you do "Skytrain" strings, you can do more with that.

However that falls into the exact trap that all LRT projects fall under "well we can get twice as much (rubbish) LRT for the price of the subway (skytrain)", when the operational costs for the Skytrain are much less, hence the higher frequency.

Like you can cut Skytrain's operational costs in half, you just run it half as frequently, and then only half as many people ride it. It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's why the LRT looks cheaper, to run the LRT at the same frequency and capacity of the Skytrain, it would be no less than four times as expensive, as most of the costs are the drivers. The Skytrain, since it's more frequent racks up more maintenance costs, the same costs that would exist if the LRT was run at that frequency.