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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

This article is full of misguided logic. The voters of Surrey chose to squash LRT, not Doug. Doug merely made the proposal and the citizens agreed with him. As for Skytrain costing more than LRT, if it is such a huge difference, then why are they building Skytrain all the way to Arbutus and then to UBC? Why not put an LRT from VCC all the way to UBC on the road with cars like was supposed to happen in Surrey? The argument is stupid if you ask me. Vancouverites don't want LRT and neither does Surrey.

The significant difference between Vancouver and Surrey is ridership. There's simply no question that the Broadway corridor needs (desperately) a grade separated rapid transit backbone like SkyTrain. I think there's a fair argument to be made that this isn't true in Surrey.

But, conversely, this doesn't mean that Surrey needs LRT. IMHO the 80/20 rule applies here - it just doesn't make sense to build LRT at 80% of the cost and get only 20% of the benefit when a proper lane separated Bus Rapid Transit system can give much the same result at far less cost.

The problem is that even though a bus implementation is the most sensible course of action, it's seen politically as being a "third rate" solution. So it's just a non-starter that nobody seems to want to touch. People seem instead to want to spend spend first-rate prices on a second-rate solution.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The significant difference between Vancouver and Surrey is ridership. There's simply no question that the Broadway corridor needs (desperately) a grade separated rapid transit backbone like SkyTrain. I think there's a fair argument to be made that this isn't true in Surrey.

But, conversely, this doesn't mean that Surrey needs LRT. IMHO the 80/20 rule applies here - it just doesn't make sense to build LRT at 80% of the cost and get only 20% of the benefit when a proper lane separated Bus Rapid Transit system can give much the same result at far less cost.

The problem is that even though a bus implementation is the most sensible course of action, it's seen politically as being a "third rate" solution. So it's just a non-starter that nobody seems to want to touch. People seem instead to want to spend spend first-rate prices on a second-rate solution.

Is the 96 B-Line at capacity?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is the 96 B-Line at capacity?

To follow-up that point, is the Fraser Highway B-Line at capacity?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

To follow-up that point, is the Fraser Highway B-Line at capacity?

The Fraser Hwy B Line doesn't start until next year. At the moment they have the 502, 503 and (for the first half of the route) the 320.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is the 96 B-Line at capacity?

A better/faster/more reliable 96 B-Line is going to require more capacity.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The Fraser Hwy B Line doesn't start until next year. At the moment they have the 502, 503 and (for the first half of the route) the 320.

Doesn’t 320 Langley Centre only go on Fraser Highway from 152nd to 168th street? Plus that bus comes every 25~36 minutes too.

Translink really messed up its schedule ever since that bus was due to run every 12 minutes between Surrey Central Station and Fleetwood. But that’s besides the point, anyway.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The problem is that even though a bus implementation is the most sensible course of action, it's seen politically as being a "third rate" solution. So it's just a non-starter that nobody seems to want to touch. People seem instead to want to spend spend first-rate prices on a second-rate solution.

Politicians here for some reason have a fetish for anything that has a railway running through their city streets. Maybe because of all the kickbacks they get from developers when they put a pair of tracks on pavement.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Doesn’t 320 Langley Centre only go on Fraser Highway from 152nd to 168th street? Plus that bus comes every 25~36 minutes too.

Translink really messed up its schedule ever since that bus was due to run every 12 minutes between Surrey Central Station and Fleetwood.

They should instead split the 320 to two routes, each terminating to Fleetwood, and have the eastern bit renamed 34X to reduce scheduling conflicts and reliability issues.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is the 96 B-Line at capacity?

Originally Posted by CanSpice

To follow-up that point, is the Fraser Highway B-Line at capacity?

The 96 runs every 9-15 minutes, and the Fraser B-Line is set to run every 8-15, so no to either question.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The 96 runs every 9-15 minutes, and the Fraser B-Line is set to run every 8-15, so no to either question.

So, in short, these extensions can wait. Lets get shovels in the ground to replace the 99.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, in short, these extensions can wait. Lets get shovels in the ground to replace the 99.

There is no shame stopping at 164/168th for now. Phase 3 has already been proposed to go all the way to Langley ( formerly LRT ). The money suggested should be able to cover the rest of the way to 200th or further.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The 96 runs every 9-15 minutes, and the Fraser B-Line is set to run every 8-15, so no to either question.

Originally Posted by Trainguy

There is no shame stopping at 164/168th for now. Phase 3 has already been proposed to go all the way to Langley ( formerly LRT ). The money suggested should be able to cover the rest of the way to 200th or further.

Why not take that money, put it to UBC extension and the B-Lines in Surrey? Then, riders can get the best of both worlds. This also means that the B-Lines can be used to gauge which Surrey extension should be done.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The 96 runs every 9-15 minutes, and the Fraser B-Line is set to run every 8-15, so no to either question.

So why are we replacing a non-existent B-Line with a $2b+ SkyTrain system then? Why is BRT okay for Newton and Guildford but not for Fraser Highway?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

So why are we replacing a non-existent B-Line with a $2b+ SkyTrain system then? Why is BRT okay for Newton and Guildford but not for Fraser Highway?

The business case done in 2012 showed that it made far more sense to extend the Skytrain to Langley than it did to build LRT on the SNG corridor. At some point it will make sense to upgrade the SNG to LRT or better, but it doesn't right now.

[nname]

Mayor's council meeting agenda

In summary, TransLink Staff recommend:
- Stop all work on SNG LRT
- Split the Langley Line into two phases, and construct the first part in phase 2 within the 1.61B (1.58B - 50M SNG sunk cost - 20M LRT pre-construction + 30M unspent Fraser LRT planning) funding envelope.
- Develop a new plan for SoF rapid transit as a whole, possibly upgrade the 96 B-Line.

And in other part of the agenda:
- The possibility of accelerating Phase 3 plan due to change in SoF rapid transit and the upcoming federal election
- Start the planning for the rail to UBC (not part of phase 3, but it's now a separate item)

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

Politicians here for some reason have a fetish for anything that has a railway running through their city streets. Maybe because of all the kickbacks they get from developers when they put a pair of tracks on pavement.



They should instead split the 320 to two routes, each terminating to Fleetwood, and have the eastern bit renamed 34X to reduce scheduling conflicts and reliability issues.

Is it prudent to get rid of the Fleetwood/Langley Centre portion of 320 altogether, and let 395 run half-hourly midday and weekend (and hourly at night) instead? In Cloverdale, it’s a 12-minute walk from 60th to 64th Avenue.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by nname

Mayor's council meeting agenda

In summary, TransLink Staff recommend:
- Stop all work on SNG LRT
- Split the Langley Line into two phases, and construct the first part in phase 2 within the 1.61B (1.58B - 50M SNG sunk cost - 20M LRT pre-construction + 30M unspent Fraser LRT planning) funding envelope.
- Develop a new plan for SoF rapid transit as a whole, possibly upgrade the 96 B-Line.

And in other part of the agenda:
- The possibility of accelerating Phase 3 plan due to change in SoF rapid transit and the upcoming federal election
- Start the planning for the rail to UBC (not part of phase 3, but it's now a separate item)

I like everything that I see
Relevant to post is the three 'Options for Next Steps' being considered:

TL officially recommends Option 2, which gets planning processes going on both the Expo: Langley Extension and enhanced B-Line/BRT on KGB and 104th. Option 1 defers any SNG work, but the no-brainer choice between those two would be Option 2, which is basically exactly what SFS campaign has called for

The mayors looking to shunt the switch are probably going to want to focus on Option 3, but this option "risks losing senior government funding" whereas the two other options that immediately proceed with SkyTrain actually don't pose that risk.

The media narrative and the recent barrage of "experts" have been constantly suggesting the opposite, and I am glad to see this being shot down. As I have said all along, the $2.9b cost estimate for Expo: Langley SkyTrain fits within a total phase 2 + phase 3 funding envelope - now acknowledged to be $3.5b. So, there was never anything to worry about.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by nname

Mayor's council meeting agenda

In summary, TransLink Staff recommend:
- Stop all work on SNG LRT
- Split the Langley Line into two phases, and construct the first part in phase 2 within the 1.61B (1.58B - 50M SNG sunk cost - 20M LRT pre-construction + 30M unspent Fraser LRT planning) funding envelope.
- Develop a new plan for SoF rapid transit as a whole, possibly upgrade the 96 B-Line.

And in other part of the agenda:
- The possibility of accelerating Phase 3 plan due to change in SoF rapid transit and the upcoming federal election
- Start the planning for the rail to UBC (not part of phase 3, but it's now a separate item)

Thanks for the link, that was really interesting to look through. Looking forward to seeing this process unfold - I'm starting to become much more optimistic that the right call will win out by the time all is said and done.

[Sheba]

I'm looking at the link now. I presume McCallum hasn't as the planned LRT was going to be elevated through the ALR "due to soil conditions based on geotechnical analysis". So much for having Skytrain run at ground level through that section...

[Metro-One]

Am I crazy, or is Skytrain east of King George going to have the exact same number of stations as LRT?? I count 8 on both.

Seems to me that the “lost” stations being thrown around by the LRT supporters are just redundant stations next to the existing Skytrain stations (King George and City Centre).

Most of Skytrain to Langley is pretty straight forward relative to other rail projects, the only major question for phase one is whether or not to build for a potential guideway exchange system near King George if the L Line has any potential to become Skytrain as well in the future.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Am I crazy, or is Skytrain east of King George going to have the exact same number of stations as LRT?? I count 8 on both.

Seems to me that the “lost” stations being thrown around by the LRT supporters are just redundant stations next to the existing Skytrain stations (King George and City Centre).

Been saying that since the beginning. Doesn't matter, since diehard SkyTrain haters will just ignore that, come back a couple days later, and repeat the same lie. Aside from one or two people, arguing with spambots seems like a better use of one's time.