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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Nope, the Power of Love. Don't need a credit card to ride this train!

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If the LRT was canceled, here is what could happen, they just make Skytrain lines in the area.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RuRfK5O50ayec5Zp5nF1k-5MSUo&usp=sharing

My quick sketch of how it could be.

One question - how does the Millennium get to Maple Ridge with the Surrey Line in its way?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

One question - how does the Millennium get to Maple Ridge with the Surrey Line in its way?

Have the two lines "cross" at Coquitlam Central maybe? I dunno... back to the fantasy thread .

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by scryer

Have the two lines "cross" at Coquitlam Central maybe? I dunno... back to the fantasy thread .

Actually, if the Expo line is extended to Langley then they could extend the line eventually over the Golden Ears Bridge [which was designed to handle light rail] and run eventually back connecting to the end of the Evergreen line extension.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by jhausner

You can't compare Surrey to Calgary, that's just absurd. You have to compare Calgary to Metro Vancouver.

Calgary = 1,501 sq/km.
Surrey = 316 sq/km.

I wasn't the one who started the comparison, it was officedweller when he said:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Calgary has capacity issues with street-running downtown.

The capacity issues being seen now in Calgary won't be seen in Surrey for several decades, if a similar system was built, so using their capacity issues as an argument has to many holes to be valid.

Now I am not saying LRT is the right solution for Surrey, just that lack of capacity isn't a valid argument against it.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Actually, if the Expo line is extended to Langley then they could extend the line eventually over the Golden Ears Bridge [which was designed to handle light rail] and run eventually back connecting to the end of the Evergreen line extension.

You do realize that central Langley is almost as far from the Golden Ears Bridge as Guildford is from it don't you?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You do realize that central Langley is almost as far from the Golden Ears Bridge as Guildford is from it don't you?

Lol! Yes, I know there is a long distance between where the expo line extension to Langley Centre would end and the Golden Ears Bridge. [I grew up in Langley and lived there for the first 19 years of my life so I know all to well that part of the lower mainland] Although I also know 200 St and Willoughby is booming and the Langley event centre and a lot of jobs are on that corridor that makes having Skytrain run down that route to connect to Maple Ridge makes sense. Also, the route would go to the park and ride by highway 1 and the 200 st exit which would serve well as its a park and ride facility and could be like Scott Road is now in 2050 or later.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Lol! Yes, I know there is a long distance between where the expo line extension to Langley Centre would end and the Golden Ears Bridge. [I grew up in Langley and lived there for the first 19 years of my life so I know all to well that part of the lower mainland] Although I also know 200 St and Willoughby is booming and the Langley event centre and a lot of jobs are on that corridor that makes having Skytrain run down that route to connect to Maple Ridge makes sense. Also, the route would go to the park and ride by highway 1 and the 200 st exit which would serve well as its a park and ride facility and could be like Scott Road is now in 2050 or later.

Technically it could work, but most of Pitt and Maple commutes directly west over Pitt River - not only is the M-Line more useful for Tri-Cities/Burnaby commuters, but getting downtown via Expo would take as long as the WCE after you've just missed the train!

When the time comes, it'll probably be a B-Line from either Haney Place or Maple Meadows through Walnut Grove to Langley City Station. Sorry, but there's not much between Carvolth and 72nd except ALR farmland, so a SkyTrain isn't going to be worth it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The capacity issues being seen now in Calgary won't be seen in Surrey for several decades, if a similar system was built, so using their capacity issues as an argument has to many holes to be valid.

Now I am not saying LRT is the right solution for Surrey, just that lack of capacity isn't a valid argument against it.

Thing is that officedweller seems to have overlooked Part 2 of that argument: Calgary's C-Train has a total capacity of 15,000 pphpd, but Surrey's maxes out at 4,800. Assuming that density/capacity scales 1:1, downtown Surrey can only get a third as big as downtown Calgary before things start going pear-shaped.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thing is that officedweller seems to have overlooked Part 2 of that argument: Calgary's C-Train has a total capacity of 15,000 pphpd, but Surrey's maxes out at 4,800. Assuming that density/capacity scales 1:1, downtown Surrey can only get a third as big as downtown Calgary before things start going pear-shaped.

How would that look if the backbone (i.e. Fraser Highway) were SkyTrain? Does the L-Line in that case really need to be higher capacity, or can it be at a level that's above standard bus service and still work?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Now I am not saying LRT is the right solution for Surrey, just that lack of capacity isn't a valid argument against it.

I don't mean LRT as a technology -
I mean the built form of at-grade in the street with multiple street crossings.
That'll constrain capacity (not the vehicles, etc.)

Originally Posted by Shift

Some LRT Track routing from the open house.

102 Ave to Surrey Central Station:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thing is that officedweller seems to have overlooked Part 2 of that argument: Calgary's C-Train has a total capacity of 15,000 pphpd, but Surrey's maxes out at 4,800. Assuming that density/capacity scales 1:1, downtown Surrey can only get a third as big as downtown Calgary before things start going pear-shaped.

Good point, but I suppose it depends what the capacity constraints are - vehicular / platform length (they can always buy more / extend) or built form (intersection throughput, etc.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't mean LRT as a technology -
I mean the built form of at-grade in the street with multiple street crossings.
That'll constrain capacity (not the vehicles, etc.)

Good point, but I suppose it depends what the capacity constraints are - vehicular / platform length (they can always buy more / extend) or built form (intersection throughput, etc.)

Yup, tunneled LRT can move just as many people as the Canada Line does. Next time zwei somebody throws a "street LRT with 6,000+ pphpd" number around, assume they're talking about a downtown segment where all the lines use the same tunnel.

I'm assuming that the environmental review's use of "ultimate" means "we can build no more."

Originally Posted by CanSpice

How would that look if the backbone (i.e. Fraser Highway) were SkyTrain? Does the L-Line in that case really need to be higher capacity, or can it be at a level that's above standard bus service and still work?

Good question, not many answers. But seeing as Surrey themselves predict a 2030 Newton-Guildford catchment area the size of the 2017 Canada Line's (119,606 along KGB/104th vs 128,200), I'd lean toward "yesmoreOMGpleasemore."

[officedweller]

For a "local" line, Newton Guildford can probably work in the centre of the street on King George Blvd and on 104 Ave., but in the downtown, I think it should be underground whenever it crosses streets and intersections.
Even if it only had one turn from 104 to King George Blvd, that turn should be an underpass.
That would preserve throughput capacity for the future - so they can build branches onto it and feed more trains through.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For a "local" line, Newton Guildford can probably work in the centre of the street on King George Blvd and on 104 Ave., but in the downtown, I think it should be underground whenever it crosses streets and intersections.
Even if it only had one turn from 104 to King George Blvd, that turn should be an underpass.
That would preserve throughput capacity for the future - so they can build branches onto it and feed more trains through.

Right, like how Edmonton's first two lines are at-grade along the highways - plenty of space there - but the downtown tunnel allows for 12k capacity total. A surface option may work on King George south of 96th, and would definitely work south of 72nd.

[officedweller]

Yeah, just the potential bottleneck areas.

[scryer]

And none of which these ideal tunnels/underpasses are being proposed for the project we secured the funds for.

[Firebrand]

Originally Posted by scryer

And none of which these ideal tunnels/underpasses are being proposed for the project we secured the funds for.

There's no point of adding a tunneled section in Whalley when they moved too far along with the project. They're waiting for a contractor right now to build the damn thing.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

There's no point of adding a tunneled section in Whalley when they moved too far along with the project. They're waiting for a contractor right now to build the damn thing.

Not my point but okay..

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Technically it could work, but most of Pitt and Maple commutes directly west over Pitt River - not only is the M-Line more useful for Tri-Cities/Burnaby commuters, but getting downtown via Expo would take as long as the WCE after you've just missed the train!

When the time comes, it'll probably be a B-Line from either Haney Place or Maple Meadows through Walnut Grove to Langley City Station. Sorry, but there's not much between Carvolth and 72nd except ALR farmland, so a SkyTrain isn't going to be worth it.

I was thinking the same thing. IMHO, for more likely than having Skytrain use the Goldenears bridge is to have a commuter rail line cross it, connecting the CPR Cascade Sub. with the CNR Yale Sub. This would a more direct routing from Abbotsford than an extension using the Mission Sub. It still probably won't happen anytime soon, but I think it makes more sense.

I drew the connection as a grey line on the map below:

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Firebrand

There's no point of adding a tunneled section in Whalley when they moved too far along with the project. They're waiting for a contractor right now to build the damn thing.

The point would be to re-examine the design, not necessarily the whole project.
They could phase it to build that section as the last part pending review.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I don't mean LRT as a technology -
I mean the built form of at-grade in the street with multiple street crossings.
That'll constrain capacity (not the vehicles, etc.)

Good point, but I suppose it depends what the capacity constraints are - vehicular / platform length (they can always buy more / extend) or built form (intersection throughput, etc.)

The two factors that affect transit capacity are vehicle capacity and vehicle frequency. The former is defined by the vehicle's length and configuration (number of seats and space to stand). Vehicle frequency is a bit more complicated, but the largest factor is typically the dwell time. Minimum spacing between vehicles is another important factor. For surface transport, the other factor is how much you are willing to impede other vehicles with transit priority measures.

While the track routing above could be a mess for other road users, it needn't affect the LRT schedule as when a train approaches, the appropriate lights all turn red (and the gates close if they have them, which they should), allowing the train to pass by without stopping.

The only thing, since it is so disruptive to other traffic, you probably don't want that to happen very often to minimize the effects on congestion. As a result it is more of a NYMBY restriction rather than a technical one.

The other thing, looking closer at that map, the platform looks almost as long as the SkyTrain station (looks to me to be at least 60m, possibly longer). If that is the case for all of the stations, they should be able to use long trains carrying up to 400 maybe even 500 passengers. This station might be an exception though.