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

[nname]

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).

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.

Yes, LRT and SkyTrain have the same number of stations, although some stations are at slightly different location.

This is the same as some arguments claim that the LRT and SkyTrain have similar rapid transit boardings, and that's because the extra boardings from LRT come from the forced transfer between the two technologies

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

Good to see the Mayors Council didn't drag their heels on this.

But don't ignore this part (page 37):

The most recent technical work confirms that the trade-offs, that informed the Mayors’ Council LRT
decision, have not fundamentally changed. With the removal of uncertainty around the technology
decision, TransLink could take advantage of numerous efficiencies to save costs and time and ensure the
smooth transition between design and engineering work for both stages of the South of Fraser Rapid
Transit project. Based upon the feedback received at the August briefing session with the Mayors of the
City of Langley, Township of Langley and City of Surrey, and at the direction of the Joint Planning and
Funding Committee, TransLink is requesting that the Provincial government confirm LRT as the Fraser
Highway rapid transit technology choice. If that happens, the confirmation would need to come in
advance of the 2018 procurement process for Surrey-Newton-Guildford in order to secure efficiencies in
Stage 1, and to allow subsequent financial and project planning to proceed with more certainty.

So clearly suspending, or canceling the LRT also creates the same result, removing the technology uncertainty.

Also in an earlier article, the LRT designs were stripping necessary features from the LRT to keep the cost at the estimate. So I'd seriously want to see the real cost of that LRT before they started stripping it. It's very likely that LRT was going to cost far more than Skytrain from the property costs alone.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Kisai

But don't ignore this part (page 37):

Oh, that's just part of the memo dated Sept 2017 which is just attached to the rest of the agenda. With Surrey's word, it's technically outdated - it's certain that Fraser Highway will be a SkyTrain project, as per the municipality.

Originally Posted by Kisai

Also in an earlier article, the LRT designs were stripping necessary features from the LRT to keep the cost at the estimate. So I'd seriously want to see the real cost of that LRT before they started stripping it. It's very likely that LRT was going to cost far more than Skytrain from the property costs alone.

Definitely. I think previously the LRT had been planned with 60 metre platforms. But then, probably a part of the rationale to have them shortened to 40 metres upon opening is that they didn't believe the ridership would even be there for longer trams for decades.

[Trainguy]

I have issue with the quoted number of $7M more per year to operate Skytrain than LRT. What is that based on? Other cities' LRT actual yearly operating costs? I would like to see some hard numbers. Both use electricity and have moving parts that break down. LRT however, requires expensive operators for each trainset so that has to factor in. The complex signalling system also needs constant maintenance to make sure it is working right because it interacts with traffic. Just look at the mess Edmonton was in because of software glitches.

I think the operating costs for each system are much closer than being advertised.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I have issue with the quoted number of $7M more per year to operate Skytrain than LRT. What is that based on? Other cities' LRT actual yearly operating costs? I would like to see some hard numbers. Both use electricity and have moving parts that break down. LRT however, requires expensive operators for each trainset so that has to factor in. The complex signalling system also needs constant maintenance to make sure it is working right because it interacts with traffic. Just look at the mess Edmonton was in because of software glitches.

I think the operating costs for each system are much closer than being advertised.

And of course, SkyTrain is much more automated and therefore cheaper.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I have issue with the quoted number of $7M more per year to operate Skytrain than LRT. What is that based on?

More capacity, more service.

[officedweller]

Why do I suspect it's based on LRT at 15 minute frequencies and SkyTrain at 5 minute frequencies.

[nname]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Why do I suspect it's based on LRT at 15 minute frequencies and SkyTrain at 5 minute frequencies.

They're both 5min frequency.

LRT was 5min with 40m trains @ 3000 pphpd
SkyTrain was 5min with 85m trains @8000 pphpd

But like I said earlier, they could run the SkyTrain with 6min frequency and 4-car trains.. this will give 5200 pphpd and probably bring the operating cost more in line with the LRT.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I have issue with the quoted number of $7M more per year to operate Skytrain than LRT. What is that based on? Other cities' LRT actual yearly operating costs? I would like to see some hard numbers. Both use electricity and have moving parts that break down. LRT however, requires expensive operators for each trainset so that has to factor in. The complex signalling system also needs constant maintenance to make sure it is working right because it interacts with traffic. Just look at the mess Edmonton was in because of software glitches.

I think the operating costs for each system are much closer than being advertised.

There's two ways to frame the numbers, number of cars, and frequency of cars.

The LRT, was going to be two-car units, 4000 pphpd, max, at 7 minute frequency at most. The Skytrain is 2, 4/5, or 6 cars at 90 second frequencies with the slowest frequency being 6 minutes.

So double the the number of cars = double the maintenance cost. Double the frequency, double the cost. Combine both, and you'll see that the cost to run Skytrain is actually about half on a per car/frequency basis. But the thing is, the Skytrain never runs so infrequently to be comparable to the rubbish LRT specs.

Since the Skytrain automatically has twice the capacity, that means it will have a higher capacity and higher income from fares that it will pay for itself, like it always has. The LRT never will because the human factor (wages, pension, medical leave) is potentially unlimited.

Here's a (relatively old document), keep in mind that the author is trying to justify LRT costs in general over AGT (Skytrain).

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr221/221-008.pdf




Note that they set the headway to 5 minutes to come up with those numbers, not the 90 seconds it can operate at, nor the 3 minutes typically seen. So fudging this number gets you different results.

As I said, it's an old document and the references are from 1987.

EDIT may as well show newer stuff:
http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/Business_Case/080219_BusinessCase.pdf




Then there is http://www.evergreenline.gov.bc.ca/documents/Design/DiscussionGuide_final3.pdf

* Lower operating costs ($10 million annually for SkyTrain versus $15 million for LRT)
* SkyTrain has a 40% higher benefit-cost ratio
than LRT (a comparison of project benefits, such as travel time savings and safety benefits, to the estimated project capital of $1.4 billion for SkyTrain, versus $1.25 billion for LRT)

Like one has to ask the question of who benefits the most. Passengers benefit the most with the Skytrain, and the Skytrain only becomes cheaper to operate more we use it. Any non-automated system only gets more expensive as you need drivers for every train, thus your capacity is constrained by driver availability.

That is not to throw bus drivers under the metaphorical bus here, Translink or the Province, or the City (Vancouver/Burnaby/New West/Coquitlam/Surrey) can saddle any transit system with so many costs to make it uneconomical. Even at a glance, that Surrey LRT was never going to stay within budget and likely would have had it's service level cut in half once people realize it's worse than driving.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Kisai

There's two ways to frame the numbers, number of cars, and frequency of cars.

The LRT, was going to be two-car units, 4000 pphpd, max, at 7 minute frequency at most. The Skytrain is 2, 4/5, or 6 cars at 90 second frequencies with the slowest frequency being 6 minutes.

So double the the number of cars = double the maintenance cost. Double the frequency, double the cost. Combine both, and you'll see that the cost to run Skytrain is actually about half on a per car/frequency basis. But the thing is, the Skytrain never runs so infrequently to be comparable to the rubbish LRT specs.

Since the Skytrain automatically has twice the capacity, that means it will have a higher capacity and higher income from fares that it will pay for itself, like it always has. The LRT never will because the human factor (wages, pension, medical leave) is potentially unlimited.

Here's a (relatively old document), keep in mind that the author is trying to justify LRT costs in general over AGT (Skytrain).

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr221/221-008.pdf




Note that they set the headway to 5 minutes to come up with those numbers, not the 90 seconds it can operate at, nor the 3 minutes typically seen. So fudging this number gets you different results.

As I said, it's an old document and the references are from 1987.

That is the Gerald Fox 'Study' that Zweisystem always quotes. It WAS actually a pretty good comparison of the systems in 1986 and 1987....for the first couple of years of Skytrain. Of course what happened with Skytrain is when ridership increased they did not need to add significant staff to run more trains and get more capacity...so as ridership increased Skytrains operational cost per passenger dropped quickly while LRTs only dropped slightly. Run the same 'study' today (you could do it with info from different annual reports) and Vancouver's Skytrain would destroy the comparison cities.
Earlier someone pointed out Skytrain was forcast to have higher operating costs for Fraser highway compared to LRT. I believe this would be because of the imbalance of demand on the extension. Unless they short turn trains there will be a lot of empty trains east of King George otherwise not enough trains West of King George. As ridership east of King George grows or if they stop running Millenium line trains on the Expo Line (with the Broadway extension?) I think that number will change.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Rico

That is the Gerald Fox 'Study' that Zweisystem always quotes. It WAS actually a pretty good comparison of the systems in 1986 and 1987....for the first couple of years of Skytrain. Of course what happened with Skytrain is when ridership increased they did not need to add significant staff to run more trains and get more capacity...so as ridership increased Skytrains operational cost per passenger dropped quickly while LRTs only dropped slightly. Run the same 'study' today (you could do it with info from different annual reports) and Vancouver's Skytrain would destroy the comparison cities.

The written text seemed oddly familiar

Numbers from what was pretty much SkyTrain's first year of revenue service prove absolutely nothing if we want to look at that context. Ridership on SkyTrain did increase significantly - this report quotes year 1 ridership at 18 million. But by year 6 (1992), it was 30 million. By year 10 (1996), over 40 million passengers. The track had been extended a few km to King George but the ridership was by now more than double.

18 million passenger boardings is not even a bad result for year 1 - in your first year of operations, you have carried more passengers per kilometre than the LRT system in Calgary that has already been in operation for 6 years.

[Trainguy]

Voting Day at the Mayor's Council.....

This is going to be a fun morning as Doug puts forth his motion to switch to Skytrain. There are going to be some clear dividing lines as the "NO" side stupidly dig in their heels. Before they do that they should put Doug's shoes on their own feet. Doug is doing what any Mayor would do if he had a strong mandate to do the will of the people. Voting NO from some Mayors just sends a strong message to Surrey about how to vote on future projects for their cities.

[waves]

Watch the Mayor's Council Live on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/Translink/videos/335999103648591/

[WarrenC12]

Cote of New West is the new chair.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by waves

Watch the Mayor's Council Live on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/Translink/videos/335999103648591/

I was listening to a bit of this. Sounds like a gong-show with back and forth amendments, and amendments to amendments. It is clear that some are trying to derail things because they don't agree with Surrey's new direction.

hhhmmm

[waves]

Having watched the whole thing, it was very contentious at times.

The original motion was:

That the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation:
1. Endorse TransLink’s decision to suspend the Surrey-Newton-Guildford Project, stopping all expenditures of money and resources on the project, based on the request from the City of Surrey;
2. Use the 10-Year Vision as the basis for South of Fraser rapid transit planning, recognizing the City of Surrey request to change the technology and timing of the Fraser Highway project from LRT to SkyTrain, and draw only on the available funding currently allocated for South of Fraser rapid transit in the Phase Two Plan, and the financial framework for the Phase Three Plan.
3. Request the additional analysis and a work plan on “Option 2” in this report, for consideration at the December 13, 2018 meeting of the Mayors’ Council to:
a. Start immediately with planning, consultation, design and procurement readiness works for the SkyTrain on Fraser Highway project, building on the 2017 SkyTrain design study; and concurrently to,
b. Initiate a planning process to refresh the South of Fraser transit strategy.
4. Receive this report.

Richmond Mayor, Malcom Brodie, introduced a massive amendment which was then stopped by Doug McCallum on a point of order saying that the amendment was so big and had many too many changes to be considered an amendment and should be considered only if the original motion was defeated. The Chair, Jonathan Cote, agreed and stopped the amendment.

Then a motion was put forward to approve bullets 1 and 2, which was carried.

On the third bullet point, Langley Township Mayor Jack Frose, suggested the removal of 3a and 3b, which essentially re-states Option 2. Cote said that it doesn't seem to change the original intent and will accept the amendment. Doug McCallum, disagreed, saying that "we need to start on this process and it doesn't give the go ahead...but we do want Translink to start immediately" and then asked for a weighted vote. McCallum later called a point of order, "I feel that as long as staff recognize the wishes of citizen of Surrey that they want to move quickly that their intent is to start to work because our staff has already started to work...as long staff is aware that we want to at least start on some initial things in regards to skytrain then I will withdraw as far as the amendment is concerned."

The amendment was then passed what appeared to be unanimously.

Brodie then asked staff "are these motions going to affect any of the other Phase 2 projects". Staff response was No.

The council then voted on the final amended motion as below and passed unanimously.

That the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation:
1. Endorse TransLink’s decision to suspend the Surrey-Newton-Guildford Project, stopping all expenditures of money and resources on the project, based on the request from the City of Surrey;
2. Use the 10-Year Vision as the basis for South of Fraser rapid transit planning, recognizing the City of Surrey request to change the technology and timing of the Fraser Highway project from LRT to SkyTrain, and draw only on the available funding currently allocated for South of Fraser rapid transit in the Phase Two Plan, and the financial framework for the Phase Three Plan.
3. Request the additional analysis and a work plan on “Option 2” in this report, for consideration at the December 13, 2018 meeting of the Mayors’ Council.
4. Receive this report.

[GlassCity]

I watched it too. So what's the plan now? Seemed like the original point was that staff would come back for the December 13 meeting and present their (early?) findings and analysis of a switch to SkyTrain. But Brodie wanted to amend that to a "future meeting" instead. So I wonder when we'll hear about what the SkyTrain plans could look like.

[waves]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I watched it too. So what's the plan now? Seemed like the original point was that staff would come back for the December 13 meeting and present their (early?) findings and analysis of a switch to SkyTrain. But Brodie wanted to amend that to a "future meeting" instead. So I wonder when we'll hear about what the SkyTrain plans could look like.

Brodie's amendment was not allowed to be put forward by the chair, so it was basically dead on arrival, which I am sure probably annoyed him.

As for the plan now, they approved analysis and a work plan towards Option 2.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by waves

Brodie's amendment was not allowed to be put forward by the chair, so it was basically dead on arrival, which I am sure probably annoyed him.

As for the plan now, they approved analysis and a work plan towards Option 2.

Cool, thank you. Based on what we heard today, I expect to hear a lot more from the mayors once staff has something to report December 13 then.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by waves

Having watched the whole thing, it was very contentious at times.

I only saw part of it but it doesn't sound like I missed much. The vibe I got from it, which I'll admit isn't entirely accurate of everyone there (and probably isn't very PC) is that it was a room of cranky old white men. I'm pretty sure that's due to mostly seeing Brodie vs McCallum.