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

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The land is certainly there: https://goo.gl/maps/hA8Dg1oVu8V5mNHG9

Even to 166th is a good distance (7 km).

Zooming out from that GoogleMap you see that it's a sizeable length of track if you transpose the distance to the Evergreen Line area.
(Evergreen Line is 10.9 km)

And remember that SkyTrain to Surrey was opened in 2 phases - SkyBridge to Scott Road first, then up the hill to King George.


https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1482921,-122.8340202,4092a,35y,38.65t/data=!3m1!1e3

[Bobert]

The current proposal seems expensive compared to the evergreen line.

AM I correct in thinking that this difference is mainly from right-of-way issues and difficulty of constructing on a busy corridor?

[Migrant_Coconut]

IMO it's more land value, inflation and distance. Not only is the cost of buying and developing the ROW increasing every year, but the entire Langley extension will be nearly twice as long as the Evergreen.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IMO it's more land value, inflation and distance. Not only is the cost of buying and developing the ROW increasing every year, but the entire Langley extension will be nearly twice as long as the Evergreen.

I believe that another reason as to why the Evergreen was able to save a bit of money was because a third of the line was built at surface level.

I'm not sure how to explain the tunneled section though.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Express691

I believe that another reason as to why the Evergreen was able to save a bit of money was because a third of the line was built at surface level.

I'm not sure how to explain the tunneled section though.

could parts of this be built at grade? such as creating right-in/right-out only through a large portion of the road? (i am not familiar enough with Surrey to know their traffic patterns/street grid/etc.)

probably not but might be worth taking a look at.

[officedweller]

McCallum wanted part of it at grade through the park, but who knows if that would have been feasible.

Originally Posted by Bobert

The current proposal seems expensive compared to the evergreen line.

AM I correct in thinking that this difference is mainly from right-of-way issues and difficulty of constructing on a busy corridor?

Could also be reconstructing the entire length of Fraser Highway to shift lanes over and plant columns down the middle, although there appears to be a median for a good portion of the route based on GoogleMaps.

The stations may also be bigger than Evergreen, as they seem to want to build the stations in median, rather than at the side of the road.
One of the drawings showed walkways above the guideway, so the whole guideway probably won't be raised for stations like Brentwood, but those stations are more complex than side of road like Burquitlam, Lincoln, etc.

Originally Posted by officedweller

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surrey-langley-skytrain-update-february-2019

[nname]

Originally Posted by officedweller

McCallum wanted part of it at grade through the park, but who knows if that would have been feasible.



Could also be reconstructing the entire length of Fraser Highway to shift lanes over and plant columns down the middle, although there appears to be a median for a good portion of the route based on GoogleMaps.

The stations may also be bigger than Evergreen, as they seem to want to build the stations in median, rather than at the side of the road.
One of the drawings showed walkways above the guideway, so the whole guideway probably won't be raised for stations like Brentwood, but those stations are more complex than side of road like Burquitlam, Lincoln, etc.

From the 2017 cost estimate, only 152 (overpass) and 160 (mezzanine) are in median and have 2 entrances.

I think in comparison, the Evergreen does not have nearly as many vehicle, smaller storage/maintenance facility, and the cost does not include park&ride and bus loops.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

McCallum wanted part of it at grade through the park, but who knows if that would have been feasible.

Probably not. Too many cross streets, and the terrain is poor enough in some parts that at-grade may be just as expensive.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by officedweller

And remember that SkyTrain to Surrey was opened in 2 phases - SkyBridge to Scott Road first, then up the hill to King George.

Three phases actually, Columbia in 1989, Scott Road in 1990, King George in 1994.

[officedweller]

Thanks, forgot about Columbia.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Dave2

Three phases actually, Columbia in 1989, Scott Road in 1990, King George in 1994.

Originally Posted by nname

From the 2017 cost estimate, only 152 (overpass) and 160 (mezzanine) are in median and have 2 entrances.

I think in comparison, the Evergreen does not have nearly as many vehicle, smaller storage/maintenance facility, and the cost does not include park&ride and bus loops.

Any idea what's planned for 140th and 166th?

[Express691]

Originally Posted by nname

From the 2017 cost estimate, only 152 (overpass) and 160 (mezzanine) are in median and have 2 entrances.

I think in comparison, the Evergreen does not have nearly as many vehicle, smaller storage/maintenance facility, and the cost does not include park&ride and bus loops.

Are there any diagrams for 160th?

Also: I guess the new OMC that is supposed to come with the Fraser Highway Extension will not be built now, rather, in a later phase

[Urbanmetro]

I have a question that hasn't been mentioned in the media or on this forum:
Why in the world is a SKYTRAIN STATION planned for Fraser Hwy and 140 street? It is 800m from King George and east is only forest...

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

I have a question that hasn't been mentioned in the media or on this forum:
Why in the world is a SKYTRAIN STATION planned for Fraser Hwy and 140 street? It is 800m from King George and east is only forest...

The outpatient center and RCMP E-Division Headquarters.

[Urbanmetro]

I've been quiet on this whole SkyTrain to Langley fiasco to date. My disclosure statement: I am not a Realtor, a political figure, a big businessman, a city planner nor a speculator. I'm now a Surrey resident having lived in southern Europe and the middle east.

Vancouver needs to learn from other cities mistakes and victories. Transit must be built with immediate needs considered and have a future vision.
Skytrain to Langley would not be built in Europe or Asia. People and political persons say south of the Fraser is going to have so many more residents. What isn't mentioned is the population will NOT be dense. With the exception of Surrey city Centre, Newton and Guildford, Surrey will remain a suburban part of metro Vancouver. Surrey should aspire to be a Leipzig as a minimum. It has a similar population and size.

Why do I say such? Priorities need to be made and kept. It isn't political or preferential. Should SkyTrain be built to South Surrey? White Rock? Ladner? Steveston? Pitt Meadows? Maple Ridge?

The cost to benefit ratio doesn't work. SkyTrain to Fleetwood is a joke. SkyTrain even to Langley is a joke. Langley is as large as Surrey with 1/4 the population of Surrey.

There's many better places transit could be built. Extending the line to Newton even makes more sense than to Fleetwood. What has happened is ridiculous and has to do with, big business and politicians playing their games...

[Urbanmetro]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The outpatient center and RCMP E-Division Headquarters.

And how many will be using these stations? It's ridiculous. A 10 minute walk from King George...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

I've been quiet on this whole SkyTrain to Langley fiasco to date. My disclosure statement: I am not a Realtor, a political figure, a big businessman, a city planner nor a speculator. I'm now a Surrey resident having lived in southern Europe and the middle east.

Thanks, though nobody accused you of being one. Welcome back.

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

Vancouver needs to learn from other cities mistakes and victories. Transit must be built with immediate needs considered and have a future vision.
Skytrain to Langley would not be built in Europe or Asia. People and political persons say south of the Fraser is going to have so many more residents. What isn't mentioned is the population will NOT be dense. With the exception of Surrey city Centre, Newton and Guildford, Surrey will remain a suburban part of metro Vancouver. Surrey should aspire to be a Leipzig as a minimum. It has a similar population and size.

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

The cost to benefit ratio doesn't work. SkyTrain to Fleetwood is a joke. SkyTrain even to Langley is a joke. Langley is as large as Surrey with 1/4 the population of Surrey.

Leipzig's not a very good comparison. Unlike Surrey, it's a city in its own right (e.g. Berlin's not right next to it like Metro Vancouver is). And Surrey may be equally populous, but it's shaped more like an Asian suburb, minus the density.

So Asian-shaped transit - and yes, many MRT lines like in Singapore, Tokyo and Shanghai are that long, as are several in Europe - seems like the natural option. And as you may have seen earlier, S-Bahns like Leipzig's are mostly off the table for Surrey due to freight conflicts and a lack of direct routes; tramways, due to mediocre performance over the existing bus routes, high expenses, and a general unwillingness to increase the latter to fix the former. That leaves SkyTrain.

The real mistake would be assuming that Surrey and Langley will remain low-density forever (as mentioned elsewhere, even Nanaimo and 29th are starting to densify), building too small, and then a decade later watching every train overcrowd and frantically race to catch up with demand. Already made that mistake with the Canada Line, let's not make it with the fastest-growing parts of the metro.

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

Why do I say such? Priorities need to be made and kept. It isn't political or preferential. Should SkyTrain be built to South Surrey? White Rock? Ladner? Steveston? Pitt Meadows? Maple Ridge?

This might help - the goal right now is to help grow the metro by connecting every square with SkyTrain. The dots seem to be optional.

If SkyTrain goes to Newton, an extension south is likely. Steveston and Ladner come up frequently at open houses and the TransLink website. The Evergreen Line comes with a spur that can be extended to Port Coq and further out.

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

There's many better places transit could be built. Extending the line to Newton even makes more sense than to Fleetwood. What has happened is ridiculous and has to do with, big business and politicians playing their games...

Politics, sure, but so was the LRT plan before it. The difference is that SkyTrain to Langley actually has the numbers to back it up. TransLink's studies show that the Langley extension and BRT combination yields more riders.

Newton sounds better on paper, but a quick Google flyover or a drive-by (no pun intended) shows that it's about 99% suburbistan, as are all the town centres.

Originally Posted by Urbanmetro

And how many will be using these stations? It's ridiculous. A 10 minute walk from King George...

SkyTrain stations in general are an eight-minute walk from each other. Patterson and Gilmore are relatively sparse, and a similar distance from major stations, but both get over a million riders each year.

[Urbanmetro]

I'm not saying never build rail transit to Langley. Maybe in 30 years when the ridership and density make sense. 3.2 billion would be better spent servicing the already poorly serviced dense areas of metro Vancouver. Something else but considered us the increased bus service required to get people onto the train.

Another note, Langley will always be the outskirts of the metro. Density needs to be planned. Metro is not the way to push density. This will just cause speculation in land markets in the valley.

North America is a car dependant society. Especially so when living in the suburbs. Those that chose to live in Langley and work in Vancouver or Burnaby, 9/10 commute by car and always will.

Maybe Leipzig wasn't the best comparison, however, it's the principles that need to be looked at. Most decent European cities have very good transit in the city proper with less and less in the metro. Even massive cities like Paris, Moscow and Istanbul don't have a metro line that runs to or through farmland.

FYI, 140th and Fraser is basically already fully developed in a 500m radius and there's little population. That station will be like lake city way in Burnaby.

[ssiguy]

The above is exactly true which is why very few cities in the world build Metros out to the far flung suburbs. yes some Asian cities have it but that have densities quadrule Vancouver's and have individual suburbs bigger than Metro Vancouver.

Cities instead build suburban rail systems which are basically commuter rail systems that run all day each-way. This is what Toronto is doing with it's 260km RER system. It will serve vastly more people and destinations than sinking all the money into one line, makes use of existing infrastructure and ROWs, and is cheaper and faster to build.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

makes use of existing infrastructure and ROWs, and is cheaper and faster to build.

we don't have existing ROWs or infrastructure to use. the only ones we have are full of freight and not usable, or are convoluted long routes that no one would use anyways.