Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[ssiguy]

Your comments would make sense if there was a Phase 2 which would take it to Langley Centre but of course there is no Phase 2. The EARLIEST the SkyTrain will make it to Langley is 2040. There will be nothing done between that time as there are other priorities namely extensing the Broadway subway to at least Alma and eventually UBC, a Hastings route to Kootenay loop, 41st Ave LRT, and of course a massive expansion of stations along the current SkyTrain system and doing what they can with the Canada Line McStations.

As for connecting to Surrey Central and Surrey General on this line, how exactly does it do that? This is a stump not a line. Anyone coming from Langley/Cloverdale going to Surrey Central won't see any significant time savings going there. By the time they get off at Fleetwood to transfer and then wait up to 6 minutes for their train, they would be almost at SC without the hassle of a transfer. Remember a fifth of this line goes thru a forest.

This line is designed to get people SoF to NoF which isn't a bad thing but is not the priority SoF needs. It needs a connection to itself and this does nothing for that. This line leaves every single university, college, and major employment centres no better connected than they are now. With BC of course having absolutely no plans to upgrade the pathetic road system, this has left the current roads clogged with transports and heavy traffic and the buses aren't moving to get people to these services forcing people to drive. BRT lanes and/or Transitways or a Valley Rail would solve that.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Your comments would make sense if there was a Phase 2 which would take it to Langley Centre but of course there is no Phase 2. The EARLIEST the SkyTrain will make it to Langley is 2040.

What makes you said that? The last Mayor's council meeting pretty much confirmed that the SkyTrain will be extended to Langley through phase 3 of the 10 years plan. This is actually before the extension of SkyTrain to UBC (which isn't part of the current 10 years plan and will happen after phase 3 is done).

What was debated was for what to do with the leftover money after the Langley extension. It will be invested in SoF area but there is not enough to build SkyTrain to Newton, and LRT is pretty much shut down.

The ONLY way for SkyTrain NOT to extend to Langley is the collapse of the entire phase 3 plan, which means you won't see any of the other project other than the ones that's already at or near the procurement phase.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by nname

What makes you said that? The last Mayor's council meeting pretty much confirmed that the SkyTrain will be extended to Langley through phase 3 of the 10 years plan. This is actually before the extension of SkyTrain to UBC (which isn't part of the current 10 years plan and will happen after phase 3 is done).

What was debated was for what to do with the leftover money after the Langley extension. It will be invested in SoF area but there is not enough to build SkyTrain to Newton, and LRT is pretty much shut down.

The ONLY way for SkyTrain NOT to extend to Langley is the collapse of the entire phase 3 plan, which means you won't see any of the other project other than the ones that's already at or near the procurement phase.

Bingo! LRT died because the voters didn't want to share the road with a street car taking up vehicles lanes, like on 104th ave. Skytrain to Langley was always on the table since bending the stub towards Fraser Hwy. It has just taken a while to get it started. Let's see how the first phase goes to 166th or 168th.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Bingo! LRT died because the voters didn't want to share the road with a street car taking up vehicles lanes, like on 104th ave. Skytrain to Langley was always on the table since bending the stub towards Fraser Hwy. It has just taken a while to get it started. Let's see how the first phase goes to 166th or 168th.

Fifty points to Gryffindor. The original plan was to build a Phase 1 streetcar from Newton to Guildford in 2025, and Phase 2 to Langley in 2030-35 once the funding came.

Until proven otherwise, the new plan is using the Phase 1 money to build a SkyTrain to Fleetwood in 2025 and the (eventual) Phase 2 money to get to Langley, with a BRT for Newton-Guildford to go with it. It certainly seems that certain parties (and not just on this forum) have been blissfully ignorant of anything related to Surrey transit until McCallum and Vander Zalm came along.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by jbrizzy

LRT stands for "Light Rail Transit," which is a step below true rapid transit, including both heavy metro and light metro systems (of which SkyTrain is one).

The problem is "light rail" often highjacks "light metro" arguments.

Most "light rail" projects lose massive amounts of money, and end up just serving park-and-rides from residential areas to commercial areas. People will just drive to work if they miss the train because it's unreliable. If you miss one, it might be an hour for the next one.

"light metro" or "medium capacity metro" or whatever alternative name people prefer for proper subway systems have their capacity and frequency designed around serving X many pphpd, and comes frequently and fast enough that a time table isn't necessary. If you miss one, another one will be along in 2-5 minutes.

The Surrey LRT was never going to be reliable enough for 15minutes, let alone 7 that they tried to use as justification of saving "1" minute, when instead be slower once you take into account the transfers needed to leave Surrey. It crosses lanes of traffic like the Edmonton snarler, it's entirely on the roadway, not it's own ROW, and it seems like the previous city council only gave a damn about getting "light rail", not good transit that people would use.

[ilikeredheads]

"LRT" is just too broad and vague of a term that it doesn't really mean anything. You can call anything that's not "heavy rail" as "LRT" if you really want to. Thus politicians love calling things "LRT" to make it sound more sophisticated than it really is (eg. to disguise the fact that it's just a streetcar)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The problem is "light rail" often highjacks "light metro" arguments. ... "light metro" or "medium capacity metro" or whatever alternative name people prefer ...

The issue isn't the vehicle technology. The issue is grade separation. Heck, you can run automated buses with most of the same benefits as Skytrain if you provide a grade separated roadway for them.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by nname

Spend all those 3.2 billions in building BRT and you'll see TransLink go bankrupt within 5 years.

Buses are expensive to operate compare to train, while providing much less capacity for the equal amount of money spent in operation.

Imagine each BRT line cost 100 million to build and 12 million a year to operation (in line with 95 B-Line or most of the upcoming rapid bus, but much less than the 99 B-Line)... then that's 32 lines at a cost of 384 millions a year. Assuming TransLink only contribute to the regional portion of 20% on new transit line... then the cost of operating those BRT would've paid for an almost 2 billion SkyTrain line every year!!

If there is no huge operation cost attached to buses, wouldn't you think that TransLink already be running tens of thousands of buses that filled every corner of Metro Vancouver by now?

Are you sure about operational costs? If you replace a b line route that runs every 10 minutes in mixed traffic with a BRT route in its own dedicated lane that runs at the same frequency and has an average speed that is twice as fast, you are using half as any buses. If you have 4 or 5 of these routes in Surrey, there will be less demand for the regular routes, which would mean lower operational costs for those routes.

There are a lot of options for BRT in Surrey. There is the old interurban route that could be utilized to some degree, and the hydro right of ways, which are extremely wide. Combine that with main trunk lines along KG/104th/Fraser and you can design any number of highly efficient routes that have fast connections with the 4 Skytrain stations in Surrey, as well as providing fast transit service within Surrey. And, with emerging technologies, a BRT route will be able to match rail capacity, with lower operational costs, and far lower up front costs.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Time out - exactly how does BRT running at the same frequency as a B-Line use half as many buses? "Twice the capacity" doesn't work either, since unless we buy bi-artics it's still a two-car vehicle no matter how fast it goes.

Originally Posted by logan5

Are you sure about operational costs? If you replace a b line route that runs every 10 minutes in mixed traffic with a BRT route in its own dedicated lane that runs at the same frequency and has an average speed that is twice as fast, you are using half as any buses. If you have 4 or 5 of these routes in Surrey, there will be less demand for the regular routes, which would mean lower operational costs for those routes.

No, because express routes are somewhat limited if the local routes only come every thirty minutes (or worse, since you want to cut service on the latter). Surrey should aim for 15-minute local frequency and 5-10 minute express frequency like Vancouver.... and for the next few decades, that means a lot more drivers' salaries. SkyTrain is automated.

[logan5]

Another point I'll add. The B-Line route (which is BRT lite) in Surrey has the lowest operational cost (cost per boarding) in Surrey, and is in fact the second best performing bus route in Metro Vancouver, behind only the 99 B-Line. If the 96 had BRT features, it would perform even better, as it would need fewer vehicles.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The issue isn't the vehicle technology. The issue is grade separation. Heck, you can run automated buses with most of the same benefits as Skytrain if you provide a grade separated roadway for them.

The issue is always grade separation, but pressure to get the most transit for the government dollar tends to push the worst, most expensive to maintain, most accident prone technology. Like an automated BRT could be possible, but that doesn't solve the transit mode change issue that the LRT had to begin with.

Only one place in the world has an effective BRT, and it costs about 80 cents per trip. But it's also deeply unpopular. Of note "people protest it by blocking the BRT lanes", which to me shows that again, the lack of grade separation rears it's ugly head.

[POCO]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The issue is always grade separation, but pressure to get the most transit for the government dollar tends to push the worst, most expensive to maintain, most accident prone technology. Like an automated BRT could be possible, but that doesn't solve the transit mode change issue that the LRT had to begin with.

Only one place in the world has an effective BRT, and it costs about 80 cents per trip. But it's also deeply unpopular. Of note "people protest it by blocking the BRT lanes", which to me shows that again, the lack of grade separation rears it's ugly head.

Ottawa also has/had a fairly effective BRT system with separate roadways. But it's being upgraded to LRT. Looks like a good project from the outside.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

Another point I'll add. The B-Line route (which is BRT lite) in Surrey has the lowest operational cost (cost per boarding) in Surrey, and is in fact the second best performing bus route in Metro Vancouver, behind only the 99 B-Line.

Correct - and the comment you replied to observes that SkyTrain's operating costs are even lower than that, making BRT comparably expensive. For example, matching even the Canada Line's capacity with BRT would require one bi-articulated (three-car) bus every minute... the expenses and logistics required to do that would outweigh any kind of benefits.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

An offensive waste of money and an affront to people SoF. This has EVERYTHING to do with real estate development and ribbon cutting ceremonies and absolutely NOTHING to do with transit planning. This has politics written all over it..........Surrey agreed to the Broadway Subway only if MacCallum got his SkyTrain extension.

The vast majority of people SoF also work and/or go to schools SoF. The SoF needs superior transit to connect it to itslef not a stump to shave 4 minutes off the trip to NoF which is all this does. It serves nearly no one, goes by no major employers, colleges, universities, or even high density neighbourhoods. This line is akin to building the Evergreen Line from just Lougheed to Port Moody.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Your comments would make sense if there was a Phase 2 which would take it to Langley Centre but of course there is no Phase 2. The EARLIEST the SkyTrain will make it to Langley is 2040. There will be nothing done between that time as there are other priorities namely extensing the Broadway subway to at least Alma and eventually UBC, a Hastings route to Kootenay loop, 41st Ave LRT, and of course a massive expansion of stations along the current SkyTrain system and doing what they can with the Canada Line McStations.

As for connecting to Surrey Central and Surrey General on this line, how exactly does it do that? This is a stump not a line. Anyone coming from Langley/Cloverdale going to Surrey Central won't see any significant time savings going there. By the time they get off at Fleetwood to transfer and then wait up to 6 minutes for their train, they would be almost at SC without the hassle of a transfer. Remember a fifth of this line goes thru a forest.

This line is designed to get people SoF to NoF which isn't a bad thing but is not the priority SoF needs. It needs a connection to itself and this does nothing for that. This line leaves every single university, college, and major employment centres no better connected than they are now. With BC of course having absolutely no plans to upgrade the pathetic road system, this has left the current roads clogged with transports and heavy traffic and the buses aren't moving to get people to these services forcing people to drive. BRT lanes and/or Transitways or a Valley Rail would solve that.

Why are you so hung up on the post secondary institutions?

Like really, seriously, why?

There aren't even that many SOF.

Seeing as you are from Colverdale, I bet you are hung up on KPU Tech. Well, KPU, across all campuses, has 20,000 annual students. That's not students at one time, but all year. At 5 different campuses, AND one of those is in Richmond!

To put it in perspective, more people work each day at UBC.

The population of Fleetwood is 63,000.

KPU Tech is the only campus helped by the "interurban" and not (as much) by Skytrain to Langley (KPU Langley is only a few blocks from the proposed Langley Station), and KPU Surrey is still 2km from Newton Station and is already as well served by the 319 as possible.

Why spend billions to move around 20% at best of 5,000 students, when you can improve the commutes of 20% of 63,000 people?


And why are you focusing on people who aren't going to get Rapid transit to their doorstep?

One of the great things about the Skytrain system is that it's a tide that raises all boats. Because of the longer distance speed of Skytrain, it makes it advantageous to take the bus to Skytrain from far away compared to taking the bus to a slower tram or LRT.

Just look at how busy the bus exchanges are on the Skytrain network. No LRT system I have ever been on has that kind of activity, especially all day. People are willing to ride a bus for half an hour because of the speed of Skytrain once they get there. At Scott Road, the line up for the 319 is more people that will fit on the bus for half the day, and most of those people ride past 88 Ave (a 15 minute ride).

See, people do that already. People ride long routes into Surrey Center from the East and South East. The 502 can take up to 30 minutes just to go from King George to 152nd in afternoon traffic, but it's fucking packed. Imagine how many more people would ride, and how much better their lives would be if you could shave off 30 minutes off their commute?

Lets take someone from Cloverdale as an example. In the morning it takes 40 minutes to go from DT Cloverdale to King George station (probably much more if traffic is bad). It only takes 15 minutes to get to Fraser and 166 St. That other 25 minutes spent lurching around in a bus now becomes 10 minutes on Skytrain. That's like almost as fast as driving in rush hour.

Hey, Skytrain just saved someone like you, or many of your Cloverdale neighbors, 30 minutes a day. HOLY SHIT!

Why do you care so much about a handful of students and a shitty industrial park when there are many times more Surrey Residents that WILL benefit from Skytrain to Fleetwood?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Your comments would make sense if there was a Phase 2 which would take it to Langley Centre but of course there is no Phase 2. The EARLIEST the SkyTrain will make it to Langley is 2040. There will be nothing done between that time as there are other priorities namely extensing the Broadway subway to at least Alma and eventually UBC, a Hastings route to Kootenay loop, 41st Ave LRT, and of course a massive expansion of stations along the current SkyTrain system and doing what they can with the Canada Line McStations.

Now you're just making things up. Come back when you're willing to discuss the topic with facts.

As for connecting to Surrey Central and Surrey General on this line, how exactly does it do that? This is a stump not a line. Anyone coming from Langley/Cloverdale going to Surrey Central won't see any significant time savings going there. By the time they get off at Fleetwood to transfer and then wait up to 6 minutes for their train, they would be almost at SC without the hassle of a transfer. Remember a fifth of this line goes thru a forest.

This line is designed to get people SoF to NoF which isn't a bad thing but is not the priority SoF needs. It needs a connection to itself and this does nothing for that. This line leaves every single university, college, and major employment centres no better connected than they are now. With BC of course having absolutely no plans to upgrade the pathetic road system, this has left the current roads clogged with transports and heavy traffic and the buses aren't moving to get people to these services forcing people to drive. BRT lanes and/or Transitways or a Valley Rail would solve that.

See above response. The only facts so far are as follows:

1. With the currently allocated funding available under the 10 year plan, SkyTrain can only be extended to Fleetwood for Phase 1.
2. The Mayor's council does not want to change scope on any of the 10 year plan so Phase 2 would need to cover extension to Langley City.
3. The Mayor's council has not precluded the fact that additional funding could be accessed as part of a separate plan to continue the link through to Langley City
4. Under the 10 year plan, the Mayor's council has approved proceeding with the KGB to Fleetwood extension project

You're assuming everything else. No level of government has said they won't or can't get additional funding to go out to Langley, no level of government has said they won't go out to Langley, no level of government has committed to when be it tomorrow or 2040, you're just assuming everything else.

I could say honestly that I believe they will magically find the funding somewhere else, the other levels of government will kick in, and a separate scope will be provided to ensure the overall project completes all the way to Langley, at the same time, and my opinion would be as factual as yours.

So again it is frankly a waste of time to debate your argument further if you're unable to stick with the facts.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by logan5

Are you sure about operational costs? If you replace a b line route that runs every 10 minutes in mixed traffic with a BRT route in its own dedicated lane that runs at the same frequency and has an average speed that is twice as fast, you are using half as any buses. If you have 4 or 5 of these routes in Surrey, there will be less demand for the regular routes, which would mean lower operational costs for those routes.

There are a lot of options for BRT in Surrey. There is the old interurban route that could be utilized to some degree, and the hydro right of ways, which are extremely wide. Combine that with main trunk lines along KG/104th/Fraser and you can design any number of highly efficient routes that have fast connections with the 4 Skytrain stations in Surrey, as well as providing fast transit service within Surrey. And, with emerging technologies, a BRT route will be able to match rail capacity, with lower operational costs, and far lower up front costs.

Could I ask for people to just please put this inter-urban thing to rest. You could never use it for BRT in its current state because it is used by heavy rail and is an active rail line serving numerous industrial areas. At best it could be twinned and a commuter rail service could share the tracks much like West Coast Express does right now. But beyond that the corridor is unusable for transit, and the commuter line is a pipe dream at best, people will one day realize this.

Regarding your suggestions though, I don't feel it would make any sense. Firstly, the hydro right of ways are largely active green spaces for bike routes in the City. So you'd effectively have to rebuild all the bike routes affected.

Secondly, they are not contiguous. Quick example is the hydro way around 80 Ave and 125 suddenly stops with the hydro lines needing to go over several industrial properties, then continuing beyond at a different angle. It is also blocked at 83rd by a large Hydro substation and at 74th by another large substation. That stretch alone cuts through 3 parks and would affect numerous creeks over just a 10 block stretch.

Thirdly, based on some of point 2 above, the amount of cost in environmental impact assessments for the creeks, property acquisition, and loss of a large portion of greenspace, would prove quite costly.

Finally, the hydro space largely don't go through any "neighborhoods" that need mass transit at this stage. This would mean, like the "famed inter-urban" people can't get out of their heads once and for all, this type of BRT build would simply be a glorified commuter line akin to West Coast Express but in bus format.

Not what Surrey actually needs. So we'd in effect be spending a large amount of money on transit that is not needed today or in essence solving a problem we don't have.

Beyond the hyrdo ROWs though, I'd ask what existing corridors could accommodate an expansive BRT system in the spirit of how BRT is defined in other cities around the world aka separated transit corridors. Here is what I see:

East <> West:

- 108th Ave: Already busy enough with 2 lanes, narrow corridor with businesses and homes on either side, no real room to expand, many intersections don't even have full left turn bays (similar to many major roads in Vancouver). Verdict, no space can't be used.
- 104th Ave: Would require 1 lane of general traffic to be eliminated. BRT down this route would be no different than the originally proposed LRT. Verdict, possible.
- 100th Ave: Widening to 2 lanes either direction nearly complete but only between City Center and just beyond 152nd Avenue. Was widened to help alleviate the potential loss of traffic lane on 104th due to the previous LRT proposal. Cuts through Green Timbers Park and near major elementary school not allowing any further widening so BRT here would require removing 1 lane of general traffic they just added. Verdict, not viable.
- Fraser Hwy: Excluded as SkyTrain going down here. BRT would be no different than LRT down this stretch and was already shown through preliminary designs that LRT would require a wider corridor than SkyTrain so would impact park more and would likely require trains to run on the same roads through parts as general traffic, or a large amount of land acquisition would be required to accommodate. Verdict, not viable.
- 96th Ave: Major emergency route, cuts through Green Timbers, not very wide, would require the loss of 1 general traffic lane, directly connects Golden Ears Bridge to Surrey Center so is a major road route. Verdict, not viable.
- 88th Ave: Not very wide, direct connection to Nordel Way and AFB through Delta to West and Langley Township/Port Kells in East. Any expansion of corridor would require major property acquisitions. Verdict, not viable.
- 72nd Ave: Not contiguous, hits ALR at 152nd, steep hills, and also where it is wide enough would require major property acquisitions or loss of 1 general lane. Is also only E<>W major road corridor between 88th and 64th Avenues so traffic loss would cause chaos. -Verdict, not viable.
- 64th Ave: New dense construction along the Newton stretch would make it near impossible to widen the corridor to provide any separation. Other parts though could make sense. Far away from City Center though. Verdict, not practical.

So that's East <> West. Not going to spend time North <> South as we all know KGB is about the only corridor viable at this stage that is wide enough and wouldn't require probably a $billion in property acquisitions. Maybe 176th but that does nobody any good, just cows.

I just don't really see any corridors that make a lot of sense. The only alternative I could see is if a new corridor is created outright. Aka if the city decides to do like some other major cities around the world have done, and just (like 105 Avenue) draws a line th rough houses across the city and goes "Here is our new transit corridor", buys out all the properties, bulldozes them, and builds a new E<>W transit link. I honestly think that is the only viable option unfortunately other than SkyTrain.

Not completely dismissing your ideas though, the only viable option I could see is if Surrey made a concerted effort to increase the amount of E<>W road corridors. If they did that, then it is absolutely possible to start removing general traffic lanes on some of the other wider corridors in favor of transit. This is largely how roadways in Melbourne Australia are designed for example, with many major roads being only 1 lane general traffic either direction with street LRT rail cars in the middle. Melbourne has the largest and most successful streetcar system in the world (over 250km of tramways) and is a city of over 5 million. If you spend any time there you realize that this is largely accomplished because the city has many many many E<>W and N<>S corridors in addition to major highway and tollway access through the city.

Despite that, the city still has insanely bad traffic at times worse than Metro Vancouver, so I'll caution people that having the most extensive streetcar system in the world doesn't mean you solve traffic problems.

If we want to get real, the only way to truly solve road traffic is to prevent monkeys (us) from driving cars aka automated cars in the future.

So maybe that is the million-dollar answer. More road corridors so that we have more options to supplement with transit. The previous council's LRT plan also fell flat on its face with many people because it didn't increase road corridors but rather took away existing lanes in favor of transit. In a growing city that is traffic suicide.

[GMasterAres]

Sorry other thing I completely excluded here but should be considered is subway. The issue we have in Surrey though is the surface has a lot of rock and boulders. I know with construction projects in North Delta, building underground can be very expensive and drilling not viable given the geotechnical limitations. I'd imagine many parts of Surrey Central up to Newton and out to 176th would be similar.

That means subway would very likely either require cut-and-cover to be built OR cost 10 times what elevated SkyTrain would if you wanted to tunnel bore.

That said I am just guessing on the geotechnical front given what I've observed during other projects in the area especially utility construction. I COULD be wrong. Subway shouldn't be completely discounted though imho because you could then run lines along existing corridors without needing to affect general traffic or in many parts purchase additional properties. Case and point the future broadway line and existing Canada Line through Vancouver.

It could also be justified given the 104th Avenue and KGB corridors +- half a km either side are statistically around the same density as the Cambie corridor before Canada Line was constructed so could justify the expense.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

Are you sure about operational costs? If you replace a b line route that runs every 10 minutes in mixed traffic with a BRT route in its own dedicated lane that runs at the same frequency and has an average speed that is twice as fast, you are using half as any buses. If you have 4 or 5 of these routes in Surrey, there will be less demand for the regular routes, which would mean lower operational costs for those routes.

If you just open ONE or TWO B-Line/BRT route in a sub-region, and funnel as many traffic to the route as possible, then it would make sense.

However, the question was... "for the cost of building one SkyTrain line, you could've build BRT everywhere"... So no, it wouldn't make sense. After maybe second or third line, then the BRT routes will start cannibalizing each other. After all, there are only a fixed amount of potential riders, and having lots of BRT routes will only increase ridership to some degree, but people will not magically come out to fill all the buses on every routes.

Now as for 4 or 5 routes in Surrey... Beside KGB, 104th, Scott, and Fraser (these are set to be upgraded to at least BRT whether Fraser gets SkyTrain or not)... where would you even place the 4 new routes that would attract enough riders on a BRT while keeping some sort of local service? The current plan of rapid transit and B-Line or better corridors already covers pretty much everything in the near term.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by usog

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/ne...3-febebd3b0ada
http://www.canada.com/surreynow/news...89c9c7&k=84732
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1058911
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/van...911/story.html

100th, is it?

None of those links are working

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Regarding your suggestions though, I don't feel it would make any sense. Firstly, the hydro right of ways are largely active green spaces for bike routes in the City. So you'd effectively have to rebuild all the bike routes affected.

Secondly, they are not contiguous. Quick example is the hydro way around 80 Ave and 125 suddenly stops with the hydro lines needing to go over several industrial properties, then continuing beyond at a different angle. It is also blocked at 83rd by a large Hydro substation and at 74th by another large substation. That stretch alone cuts through 3 parks and would affect numerous creeks over just a 10 block stretch.

Thirdly, based on some of point 2 above, the amount of cost in environmental impact assessments for the creeks, property acquisition, and loss of a large portion of greenspace, would prove quite costly.

The hydro-ways are 30 meters, up to 140 meters wide. There is plenty of room for a 8 meter wide bus-way. And in the realm of mass transit infrastructure, rebuilding a bike lane is nothing. As for the other technical challenges, like getting through the sub station area, those are not difficult challenges either. The hydro-way that runs parallel to 96th Ave would be perfect for a bus-way. It runs nice and straight, and would tie in nicely with a KGB bus-way that leads to Skytrain and City Centre, and it's also in close proximity to residential areas. Shouldn't be much property acquisition along a hydro route.