Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jlove390

I’m a little confused on if the 140 street station will be in the middle of Fraser Hwy or on the southeast corner of Fraser and 140th. Also what is a pocket track section?

SE corner, according to the second image.

A pocket track is like a siding, but in the middle of the guideway. In the case of a metro, it's usually for short-turning trains without disrupting the rest of the line... so I'm guessing that some trains will terminate at 140th, head out to the pocket track, then wait for a gap between trains to go back to Waterfront.

[jlove390]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

SE corner, according to the second image.

A pocket track is like a siding, but in the middle of the guideway. In the case of a metro, it's usually for short-turning trains without disrupting the rest of the line... so I'm guessing that some trains will terminate at 140th, head out to the pocket track, then wait for a gap between trains to go back to Waterfront.

Great, thanks for the explanation!

[officedweller]

Here's the pocket track on Lougheed east of Holdom Station.


https://www.google.com/maps/search/m.../data=!3m1!1e3

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The only thing that really defines how fast the trains can go is the third rail, and how quickly the LIM's can cool down. They might have only designed and tested it to hit 100kph...

The operating speed needs to be 10-20 km/h slower than the maximum design speed so that trains can "catch up" if they fall behind schedule.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks for posting. The full map really illustrates the magnitude of this extension. There are some huge gaps between stations too.

Is the max operating speed of Skytrain still around 90-100km/h? Are the trains capable of higher speeds if the track is designed appropriately?

i thought i read once that the MK 1's used to run like 110ish km/h but due to track wear they slowed them down.

someone else might know more about that though.

[Sheba]

A few more tidbits:

TransLink is asking for more public feedback as it moves ahead with planning the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension.

A second round of public engagement is now open until Nov. 17.

...

Current plans are to have the full length of the SkyTrain completely elevated, which is the most cost-effective design and will have the least impact on streets and the environment, according to TransLink.

The location of the guideway has not been decided, but could run north,south or along the centre of Fraser Highway.

The next phase of public consultations seeks feedback on issues like accessibility and location of SkyTrain stations and how it integrates with other methods of transport like walking, cycling and driving.

Construction is expected to begin in 2022, with service beginning in 2025.

...

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by Sheba

A few more tidbits:

Thanks for sharing. It's ironic that translink's studies still point to building the entire line elevated as the most cost effective option, because Doug McCallum has been saying if portions of the line were at street level, it would be way cheaper. It's amazing that he thinks his intuition is more accurate than an entire transportation agency's studies & experiences with building rapid transit lines.

Hopefully he'll come around and realize they're right.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

Thanks for sharing. It's ironic that translink's studies still point to building the entire line elevated as the most cost effective option, because Doug McCallum has been saying if portions of the line were at street level, it would be way cheaper. It's amazing that he thinks his intuition is more accurate than an entire transportation agency's studies & experiences with building rapid transit lines.

Hopefully he'll come around and realize they're right.

I really don’t think he cares to actually have portions at grade. That was more or less a selling point to get the technology switched back to Skytrain.

For all the stupid stuff he says and does it has all been worth it to avoid the LRT nightmare happening in Surrey. There’s are projects that will shape the community for a century or more.

With that did I really think that around June or September next year we will hear some big announcement from the province and feds that money has been found to build the project out to Langley in a single phase.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I really don’t think he cares to actually have portions at grade. That was more or less a selling point to get the technology switched back to Skytrain.

For all the stupid stuff he says and does it has all been worth it to avoid the LRT nightmare happening in Surrey. There’s are projects that will shape the community for a century or more.

With that did I really think that around June or September next year we will hear some big announcement from the province and feds that money has been found to build the project out to Langley in a single phase.

I would hope that the Feds and the Province decide to just build the entire Skytrain line as described in the RRT 1, and leave room to add RRT 3

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...ve_Summary.pdf

Here's the thing, every time someone says "A LRT will be a faction to build", figure out when they swallowed the RFTV poison or watched Condon rattle on about the Jetsons again. These people do not have the best interests of the entire region in mind, they are thinking so incredibly short term that their plans ultimately would destroy quality of life and sustainability. You know the two things they say would be improved with the rubbish light rail. The Surrey City Council prior to the last municipal election were stacked with people who painted a story that if they don't get a LRT, they will get nothing.

Nonsense.

That Surrey LRT was aiming to be Canada's worst light rail, worse than The Edmonton Traffic Snarler.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

An update:
https://surreylangleyskytrain.ca/Doc...%20Summary.pdf
https://surreylangleyskytrain.ca/Doc...0Reference.pdf

Please no OMC in Langley City. We don't need a repeat of the Edmonds OMC, which effectively creates a black hole in the middle of the Town Center.

Interesting that the rendering show the line ending next to the Casino. Probably a better place for the bus terminal to if that's the plan.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Please no OMC in Langley City. We don't need a repeat of the Edmonds OMC, which effectively creates a black hole in the middle of the Town Center.

Interesting that the rendering show the line ending next to the Casino. Probably a better place for the bus terminal to if that's the plan.

Agreed. It makes more sense to put it in the Serpentine Valley somewhere. Probably cheaper too.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Please no OMC in Langley City. We don't need a repeat of the Edmonds OMC, which effectively creates a black hole in the middle of the Town Center.

Interesting that the rendering show the line ending next to the Casino. Probably a better place for the bus terminal to if that's the plan.

I would also be very interested in where the OMC would be located in Langley City (or even the township of Langley). Unfortunately there is no way to avoid another "Edmonds-black hole" since we need to have an additional functioning OMC. However the placement of the Langley OMC should be placed somewhere close to other industrial buildings. Again, I can only speculate on where it would be....

Regarding the terminus Langley station: I spy a lot of parking lots around the casino and we all know what that means . And I cannot wait to see what Willowbrook will look like once the funding is in place.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Please no OMC in Langley City. We don't need a repeat of the Edmonds OMC, which effectively creates a black hole in the middle of the Town Center.

It does? The OMC barely registers to me and I live near it. FYI it's on the edge of Edmonds Town Centre and not in the middle.

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Agreed. It makes more sense to put it in the Serpentine Valley somewhere. Probably cheaper too.

That's part of the ALR and a flood plain, with ground that's been described as like peanut butter. I doubt it would be cheaper to build it there.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

It does? The OMC barely registers to me and I live near it. FYI it's on the edge of Edmonds Town Centre and not in the middle.




That's part of the ALR and a flood plain, with ground that's been described as like peanut butter. I doubt it would be cheaper to build it there.

It's 7 minutes away walking from Edmonds Station. That's still pretty close.

Building industrial facilities on low-quality, marshy land like this isn't that unheard of. I mean, we there's the False Creek and Surrey Rail Yards, both of which are built on wetland infill.

If you extended the line to Murrayville, there's plenty of highland ALR land (coincidentally, ALR land that Langley has been trying to develop for years. Everyone wins? )

Originally Posted by scryer

I would also be very interested in where the OMC would be located in Langley City (or even the township of Langley). Unfortunately there is no way to avoid another "Edmonds-black hole" since we need to have an additional functioning OMC. However the placement of the Langley OMC should be placed somewhere close to other industrial buildings. Again, I can only speculate on where it would be....

Regarding the terminus Langley station: I spy a lot of parking lots around the casino and we all know what that means . And I cannot wait to see what Willowbrook will look like once the funding is in place.

Also, Langley City's maps (the maps they plaster all over the place when you go there) shows the Casino area as part of the "Entertainment District". https://city.langley.bc.ca/sites/def...nding_Map1.pdf
Maybe Langley can make Vin proud with their entertainment district?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Sheba

That's part of the ALR and a flood plain, with ground that's been described as like peanut butter. I doubt it would be cheaper to build it there.

Well, obviously you wouldn't put it right in the middle of the valley. It's the only place that isn't really built up along the entire corridor. The only other possibility I see is near the 190th St. Station there appears to just be an empty field. It doesn't seem to be designated as anything at this time.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Well, obviously you wouldn't put it right in the middle of the valley. It's the only place that isn't really built up along the entire corridor. The only other possibility I see is near the 190th St. Station there appears to just be an empty field. It doesn't seem to be designated as anything at this time.

Well, the valley may or may not be underwater by 2050, so that might not work out either.



(Global News)

[GlassCity]

Langley City is currently in the process of updating its OCP/Zoning Bylaw largely as a result of SkyTrain expansion, so I wouldn't put too much stock in existing land use designations.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Well, obviously you wouldn't put it right in the middle of the valley. It's the only place that isn't really built up along the entire corridor. The only other possibility I see is near the 190th St. Station there appears to just be an empty field. It doesn't seem to be designated as anything at this time.

That area is part of the Clayton FTDA. http://www.metrovancouver.org/UrbanCentreProfiles
I know that area decently. There's plans on developing it soon, just no one's gotten to it yet.

Wonder if expanding the existing OMCs instead of a new one is an option. But then again, you probably don't want to expand those for the same reason you don't want one in Langley City.

Note that you can actually build the OMC on the Surrey Golf Course or Newlands Golf Course, thus meaning there's no real net loss in agricultural land.

Well, the valley may or may not be underwater by 2050, so that might not work out either.

In that case, we have way bigger problems. Most specifically Richmond and Delta flooding- and maybe the old beds of Sumas Lake and False Creek if we're unlucky enough.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Sumas is apparently safe, and Vancouver's planning to raise the seawall. As for Richmond, I believe that was why city planners didn't want to densify it in the first place... Brodie felt otherwise.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, the valley may or may not be underwater by 2050, so that might not work out either.



(Global News)

I travel quite often to the Netherlands for business. Sea level rises of a few meters are a non issue. We already have dikes. We just raise them.

We would need sea level rises of dozens of meters to begin questioning the economics of raised dikes, this isnt a problem this century though even though less then 10 thousands years ago sea levels were over a 100 meters lower.