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

[xd_1771]

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..?

Yeah I have to wonder if they looked into the possibility of expanding an OMC elsewhere in the system at lower cost, to free up capacity at Edmonds (I was thinking just making the Coquitlam site into a full OMC, to serve the Millennium Line & Broadway Extension). Langley was keen to have an OMC in their city if it were an LRT though, and I'd think the same would likely apply for SkyTrain (maybe for a light works yard). But, any OMC addition in Langley could be justified on the basis of serving the entire system and not just the extension.

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:



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

Compelling, but wouldn't a centre platform probably have similar costs then?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by 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.

It sounds like McCallum's been inhaling magic fairy dust...

Originally Posted by ronthecivil

It's definately straight. The option they showed on the news this morning showed it being at grade through fraser timbers park and through the ALR (serpentine valley) section.

If it's at grade through the park, you can build it on the north side if you really want to kill a LOT of trees without too many issues. You would have to bridge over the crossing at 140th street but that's not too complicated.

However, I can tell you that building in the Serperentine River Valley is not fun. The soil has a consistantcy like peanut butter and it gets even weaker when distrurbed. Even to build a road your looking at doing a close mowing of the grass and then extensive preloading, with close controls of the final grading. So if you are relocating roads for this part, that's what you have to do.

To build a skytrain, it can be at grade, but it's still going to be on piles the whole way. No way the tolerences of the skytrain can deal with settlement, so even preloading or light weight fill aren't going to cut the mustard. That whole stretch will be piles. Might as well elevate it the whole way. And if you don't, you have to figure out how to elevate highway 15 instead, which isn't exactly much cheaper.

In short, the structures through the muck in the ALR are going to be geotechnical masterpeices......

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Compelling, but wouldn't a centre platform probably have similar costs then?

Centre platform need more land, and I suppose the split up of the tracks is more costly than running two tracks side by side using a single pillar?

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Yeah I have to wonder if they looked into the possibility of expanding an OMC elsewhere in the system at lower cost, to free up capacity at Edmonds (I was thinking just making the Coquitlam site into a full OMC, to serve the Millennium Line & Broadway Extension). Langley was keen to have an OMC in their city if it were an LRT though, and I'd think the same would likely apply for SkyTrain (maybe for a light works yard). But, any OMC addition in Langley could be justified on the basis of serving the entire system and not just the extension.

I believe Phase 2 plan also include expansion of vehicle storage to store the new vehicles... maybe they could increase the scope a little bit for a slightly bigger storage facility than planned.

Or... just reallocated 28 of those 158 expansion/replacements vehicle already funded for phase 2 to the Langley line, and most people wouldn't even notice. They could always purchase more as part of phase 3.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by nname

Centre platform need more land, and I suppose the split up of the tracks is more costly than running two tracks side by side using a single pillar?

Then it could work. Even today, with today's train volumes, King George often uses outbound as a storage track and I've seen single-platform operation from inbound work quite decently in peak hours.

Originally Posted by nname

Or... just reallocated 28 of those 158 expansion/replacements vehicle already funded for phase 2 to the Langley line, and most people wouldn't even notice. They could always purchase more as part of phase 3.

Build the Langley extension sooner, and future fleet expansion to 5-car trains would take place after it's built, so it wouldn't have to be part of the initial cost estimate. Good point!

[scryer]

Originally Posted by 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.

One thing that kind of bothers me about McCallum's vision is having the Skytrain elevate and ride at ground level, over and over again. I would almost think that once you elevate the Skytrain you should just keep it there until it requires grade separation. I don't know, I almost need to see renders as my imagination is certainly limited sometimes.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by scryer

One thing that kind of bothers me about McCallum's vision is having the Skytrain elevate and ride at ground level, over and over again. I would almost think that once you elevate the Skytrain you should just keep it there until it requires grade separation. I don't know, I almost need to see renders as my imagination is certainly limited sometimes.

I can kind of see it - I just don't see the point of it. It's going to regularly need grade separation for side streets, which means it would either start to resemble a roller coaster or there will be a lot of car over / underpasses. That's going to start adding up - so building the whole thing elevated may end up being cheaper.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I can kind of see it - I just don't see the point of it. It's going to regularly need grade separation for side streets, which means it would either start to resemble a roller coaster or there will be a lot of car over / underpasses. That's going to start adding up - so building the whole thing elevated may end up being cheaper.

It's only supposed to be at grade in the ALR and Green Timbers.

But the ALR land is swampy, so at grade there is going to be difficult.

[NewfBC]

This thread should now be merged with 'Transit Fantasies' .. that's where most of the recent content belongs.

Ron.

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ Ladies and gentlemen, my Psych 101 is a bit rusty - is this the denial stage, the bargaining stage or the depression stage?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

^ Ladies and gentlemen, my Psych 101 is a bit rusty - is this the denial stage, the bargaining stage or the depression stage?

Shot's fired . Sometimes you just know how to write the best kind of shade, Migrant_Coconut.

It's going to regularly need grade separation for side streets, which means it would either start to resemble a roller coaster or there will be a lot of car over / underpasses. That's going to start adding up - so building the whole thing elevated may end up being cheaper.

Sheba, you just explained what I was trying to type out in my previous post. I just can't seem to write or speak today; time to check for a stroke !

I also kind of think that it being elevated all the way through would allow for more flexibility for developments (specifically the station locations) and any kind of street alignments to begin with. But hey, the fact that this extension is looking more like a reality everyday is good enough for me at the moment.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Perhaps McCallum's talking about a continuous trench? Any cost savings there?

Edit: Never mind, too many rivers in the way.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Perhaps McCallum's talking about a continuous trench? Any cost savings there?

Edit: Never mind, too many rivers in the way.

It is not about Doug's wishes but about the engineering consultant's findings on what is truly feasible with $1.6B. Talk is just talk. Once the project is "speced" out, we will see how far down FH this will realistically go. It is better to build it right and not just going cheap to build further out.

[nname]

One thing no one seems to mentioned is... the 2.9B price tag for SkyTrain is 2022$ inflated over 5 years, which was the original planned date for construction. The 1.65B price tag for SNG LRT was in 2018$ I believe.

There is no 2018$ figure for the Langley SkyTrain option, but for 2016$, the cost was 2.46B. So the actual cost difference is less than 1 billion, assuming a 3% average inflation used.

If that's the case, assuming a few cost cutting and vehicle and maybe the OMC... I'm sure they could get it to at least 184th or Clayton?

[Metro-One]

The 2.9 billion also includes 700 million in contingency funds for unexpected cost overruns.

I doubt the ability to go at grade through the ALR but Green Timbers seems doable.

Realistically I can see this project costing between 1.8 to 2.1 billion all the way to Langley.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

It's only supposed to be at grade in the ALR and Green Timbers.

But the ALR land is swampy, so at grade there is going to be difficult.

Doing earthworks is much cheaper than building a guideway as long as stuff isn't in the way.

[ClaytonA]

Construction cost inflation have not been running at 3%.

Elevated structures also cost more to operate/maintain than at-grade alignments, it's not just the capital cost. Conversely at-grade is a big barrier/dead space like a freeway for every other mode and businesses assuming fences, etc.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Construction cost inflation have not been running at 3%.

Elevated structures also cost more to operate/maintain than at-grade alignments, it's not just the capital cost. Conversely at-grade is a big barrier/dead space like a freeway for every other mode and businesses assuming fences, etc.

Well $2.46B in 2016$ with 3% inflation is about $2.6B in 2018$ and 2.93B in 2022$

Close enough to the figure they provided.

[fredinno]

I don't know, I don't even know how economical it would be to go at-grade in Green Timbers, or the ALR, considering the number of road/water crossings that would require it to go elevated anyways.


There's no long, crossing-less section of land on the entire pathway.

[fredinno]

Also, if anyone needed any confirmation that LRT is dead: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-surrey-lrt-project-director

The Project Director for the LRT Project left.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

It is not about Doug's wishes but about the engineering consultant's findings on what is truly feasible with $1.6B. Talk is just talk. Once the project is "speced" out, we will see how far down FH this will realistically go. It is better to build it right and not just going cheap to build further out.

I was just looking at it on Google maps. To run on-ground through Green Timbers would mean after 96th, so maybe 1km there. Then through the ALR (ignoring the condition of the ground) it will need to raise for 176th, so again maybe 1km before and a bit less after. Would they really save that much money to attempt to have it on-ground for less than 3km of approx 15.5km of track?

Would running it elevated along the center median through the ALR be possible - would the existing loading be able to handle the addition weight?

Originally Posted by fredinno

I don't know, I don't even know how economical it would be to go at-grade in Green Timbers

People have already had conniptions about them cutting down trees to widen Fraser Hwy to four lanes (to match the rest of it). Can you imagine them allowing at least as many trees to be cut down to add Skytrain without adding any car lanes.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, if anyone needed any confirmation that LRT is dead: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-surrey-lrt-project-director

The Project Director for the LRT Project left.

I'm pretty sure Surrey Council cancelling it was enough confirmation.