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

[cornholio]

A option is build do 168th and 72nd which is only 12 or so kms combined and down easy rights of way that require little expropriation. Phase 2 could be 168 to Langley. As for Guidldord it's almost a part if Surrey central and those couple kms can be handled with peak hour bus lanes down 104th and right turn restrictions. In other words BRT.

Havi g said that within their budget they can build all the way to Langle and Guildford and 104th are optimal for upgrades to speed up bus travel and implement a BRT system. Their cost estimates for the Langley stretch were unrealistically high and should be arround 125mill per km.

[dothediu]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but seems like the City of Surrey and Hepner had a much bigger plan for more than just the Newton Guildford LRT line. Sure, buses already run along the routes, but if they built it all, it could densify all areas close to a LRT station?

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/cit...tres-of-grid-network-light-rail-transit/

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by dothediu

Not sure if this has been discussed, but seems like the City of Surrey and Hepner had a much bigger plan for more than just the Newton Guildford LRT line. Sure, buses already run along the routes, but if they built it all, it could densify all areas close to a LRT station?

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/cit...tres-of-grid-network-light-rail-transit/

Officedweller mentioned this a few months ago.

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's the map from the story.
Looks like a bus route map.


https://www.news1130.com/2018/07/25/surrey-lrt-network/

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by dothediu

Not sure if this has been discussed, but seems like the City of Surrey and Hepner had a much bigger plan for more than just the Newton Guildford LRT line. Sure, buses already run along the routes, but if they built it all, it could densify all areas close to a LRT station?

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/cit...tres-of-grid-network-light-rail-transit/

Using LRT in Surrey is a bad idea. The roads are not wide enough to have "streetcars" running down the middle of them. Cars and trains don't mix. Just ask Calgary drivers. Keep it in the air and away from cars and pedestrians.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Relevant conversation begins on page 268 of the thread; consensus opinion is that the routes make sense, but the actual "plan" is just Surrey First randomly doodling on a map for their reelection campaign.

Light rail on all these routes would cost $24 billion or more. With that kind of money, TransLink could pay for seven SkyTrain extensions and a B-Line for every arterial.

[nname]

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. 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.

Thinking about this more, with 6min peak headway all the way to Langley, realistically you only need 7x 4-car trains (28 cars) instead of 11x 5-cars (55 cars). That cost the vehicle cost by half. And with only 7 more trains, a new OMC is not really necessary..?

Plus, maybe they could single platform (not single track!!!) the terminus, while the other track could double as temporary vehicle storage. Something like this:



So it save cost for vehicle, station, and the maintenance facility..? Maybe either TransLink or Surrey could also sell the land that was set aside for OMC to generate extra $$$ for the Langley line

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by nname

Thinking about this more, with 6min peak headway all the way to Langley, realistically you only need 7x 4-car trains (28 cars) instead of 11x 5-cars (55 cars). That cost the vehicle cost by half. And with only 7 more trains, a new OMC is not really necessary..?

Plus, maybe they could single platform (not single track!!!) the terminus, while the other track could double as temporary vehicle storage. Something like this:



So it save cost for vehicle, station, and the maintenance facility..? Maybe either TransLink or Surrey could also sell the land that was set aside for OMC to generate extra $$$ for the Langley line

Did you send TransLink an email about this idea? What Trainguy said about the # of trains terminating to Langley Centre to reduce costs is pretty good idea.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

All that matters is giving people good service during higher demand times. That is what makes Skytrain so good... lots of flexibility.

You can't pull that off with drivers. They need breaks on certain hours, split shifts, pay more for overtime hours (especially during Canucks games), drive the train to the railyard to embark/disembark, and risk of short-staffing when a driver is called in sick.

[waves]

Originally Posted by nname

Plus, maybe they could single platform (not single track!!!) the terminus, while the other track could double as temporary vehicle storage. Something like this:

One station costs about $30 million. To build just half a station would still be probably about $20 million so in the grand scheme of a $2.0 billion dollar project, $10 million is near negligible and just a big inconvenience if you ever extend the line. It's also why most terminus stations are center platforms - you only need one platform and you can board passengers on either side and use the other for train storage.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

You can't pull that off with drivers. They need breaks on certain hours, split shifts, pay more for overtime hours (especially during Canucks games), drive the train to the railyard to embark/disembark, and risk of short-staffing when a driver is called in sick.

But SkyTrain uses automated systems and a few dozen operators at the OMCs, not drivers.

[nname]

Originally Posted by waves

One station costs about $30 million. To build just half a station would still be probably about $20 million so in the grand scheme of a $2.0 billion dollar project, $10 million is near negligible and just a big inconvenience if you ever extend the line. It's also why most terminus stations are center platforms - you only need one platform and you can board passengers on either side and use the other for train storage.

For a manual system, yes, you need trains to terminate and park at either side of the platform so driver can take their break before the next departure. Passenger can go on either side of the platform depending on which train will depart first. For automated system, it doesn't really matter as train can go and reverse in the tail track by itself.

Waterfront (Expo) is center platform, but train still goes into tail track and reverse, so it works as if it's side platformed.

King George, VCC-Clark are all side platformed.

For all other terminus, single or double tracked, only one side is used most of the time as there is no need for extra layover for driver break. Building the other side or not really doesn't matter most of the time.

The key here is not to save one side of platform (since even if it's build, it probably never going to be used for a 6min headway anyways).. it's to remove the need for a separated storage facility. Instead of just 10M, that could cost 100M or more. Plus, as long as it's double tracked, it will be relatively easy to build the second platform compared to Canada Line. Instead of having a "future station", you basically have half of a future station while the other half is functional.

More trains, second platform, and a separated OMC can always be part of phase 3 as "Expo Line Capacity Upgrade".

Plus, how likely do you think they'll extend the line past Langley Centre?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by dothediu

Not sure if this has been discussed, but seems like the City of Surrey and Hepner had a much bigger plan for more than just the Newton Guildford LRT line. Sure, buses already run along the routes, but if they built it all, it could densify all areas close to a LRT station?

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/cit...tres-of-grid-network-light-rail-transit/

Such a ridiculous plan that would waste so much money.

Why would you need that many LRTs? At this point it was obvious that their idea of LRT was not the C-Train or even Portland Max, but the Toronto streetcar.

The same can be done far far far better with two grade separated trunk lines (Skytrain to Langley and eventually the L-Line as Skytrain all the way to White Rock) and the rest being bus routes.

[BirchTrain]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Relevant conversation begins on page 268 of the thread; consensus opinion is that the routes make sense, but the actual "plan" is just Surrey First randomly doodling on a map for their reelection campaign.

Light rail on all these routes would cost $24 billion or more. With that kind of money, TransLink could pay for seven SkyTrain extensions and a B-Line for every arterial.

You can tell it was doodling by Surrey First because there was no line through the centre of Cloverdale. Also, one line terminates at Highway 10 and 152nd, instead of continuing on to White Rock. Only one rapid transit link from Surrey to north of the Fraser on that map.

You could have BRT on those corridors for a fraction of the price.

[Firebrand]

https://twitter.com/RichAmericanDoc/status/1059715043153985538?s=20

So now people need wait a minimum of 3 years longer. There are more things that can go wrong. There is less room for expansion beyond Langley. The costs are an extra billion dollars minimum. Bravo, idiots.

And it HAS to be run by Translink. No option for competition to lower costs. LRT is so much easier to bring in competitive bids for management and operation.

This was a response tweet from a DailyHive article about Surrey's unanimous vote on cancelling the LRT.

Here's another one.

Great news that they're sacrificing improved service along one of the densest corridors in Surrey.

I'm guessing he's referring to the KGH-104 corridor. Newton is very spread out, and 104 is just a dull suburban arterial that's often a bottleneck poured from Highway 1.

[BirchTrain]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

https://twitter.com/RichAmericanDoc/status/1059715043153985538?s=20





This was a response tweet from a DailyHive article about Surrey's unanimous vote on cancelling the LRT.

Here's another one.



I'm guessing he's referring to the KGH-104 corridor. Newton is very spread out, and 104 is just a dull suburban arterial that's often a bottleneck poured from Highway 1.

Bunch of libertarian-types that want public transportation run by the free market.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BirchTrain

Bunch of libertarian-types that want public transportation run by the free market.

If public transportation was run by libertarians and free market types, street light rail wouldn't even enter the picture. It'd be BRT and SkyTrain for $10 a trip or nothing at all.

[waves]

Originally Posted by nname

For a manual system, yes, you need trains to terminate and park at either side of the platform so driver can take their break before the next departure. Passenger can go on either side of the platform depending on which train will depart first. For automated system, it doesn't really matter as train can go and reverse in the tail track by itself. Waterfront (Expo) is center platform, but train still goes into tail track and reverse, so it works as if it's side platformed. King George, VCC-Clark are all side platformed. For all other terminus, single or double tracked, only one side is used most of the time as there is no need for extra layover for driver break. Building the other side or not really doesn't matter most of the time. The key here is not to save one side of platform (since even if it's build, it probably never going to be used for a 6min headway anyways).. it's to remove the need for a separated storage facility. Instead of just 10M, that could cost 100M or more. Plus, as long as it's double tracked, it will be relatively easy to build the second platform compared to Canada Line. Instead of having a "future station", you basically have half of a future station while the other half is functional. More trains, second platform, and a separated OMC can always be part of phase 3 as "Expo Line Capacity Upgrade". Plus, how likely do you think they'll extend the line past Langley Centre?

I'm not sure I follow your logic on how not building the other side platform will eliminate your need for a seperate storage facility versus if it was there. In all three options below, the amount of track is the same. Also I was at no point was I assuming that anything would be manual driven?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

and 104 is just a dull suburban arterial that's often a bottleneck poured from Highway 1.

Then why is the 501 still empty before it gets off Highway 1...

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If public transportation was run by libertarians and free market types, street light rail wouldn't even enter the picture. It'd be BRT and SkyTrain for $10 a trip or nothing at all.

Not even that. There would be no transit at all. Everything would be essentially like Uber, where the drivers set their own prices, and it's a race to the bottom. The person with the cheapest-to-operate vehicle gets all the monies. (Hence whoever puts the driverless vehicles on the road first wins.)

Which brings up a point rarely even touched during the LRT discussions. Ridesharing would make sure almost nobody ever used the LRT. In places where Uber/Lyft is available, ridership on most modes of transit other than subway and subway-like systems drops. There is a certain level of logic to it.

If it costs money to take a trip from point A to point B and you only need to wait once, then you're going to take the ridesharing option. However if the distance results in being charged like $30 instead of $2.75, you then have to justify those 15 minute waits to transfer, and in poor weather, most people do not want to wait in unprotected "LRT stops" to begin with.

The more people look at the LRT plan, the more dubious it looks. If and when ridesharing becomes legal (let's not kid ourselves, those chinese ridesharing apps are operating here regardless of legality) then the LRT will be extremely uncompetative with it. Only the Skytrain would be worth investing in as people still aren't going to want to pay for long taxi/uber rides, but very few people are going to want to wait 15 minutes for a slow LRT train when they can get an uber car in 2 minutes and get to their destination 10 minutes away in less time.

Frequency is what makes the mode sustainable. So someone who could build a train and charge 10$ a ticket, would also own all the property at each station and under/over the line itself, so they would be the only beneficiary of it's operation.

[Aroundtheworld]

I saw this posted in another thread, but it needs be posted here: McCallum reveals new details for the Surrey-Langley Skytrain line.

I wonder if this can work. I've heard because of soil conditions that the section through the ALR has to be elevated which contradicts this plan.