Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'm looking through the display boards now. One thing that's come up: 6 - 8 minutes during peak periods, 10 minutes off peak. Obviously they're not planning on running every train out to Fleetwood / Langley.

Re this: since a branch proceeding down KGB to Newton is being considered, I'd guess that this is being done to accommodate that in the future.

Even so, it's not far off from the opening-day frequencies of other lines. The Millennium Line was around every 6-8 minutes on opening to Braid (though they had not introduced Mark II trains until after it opened, once they did it went down to 5-6 mins). The Canada Line branches were every 7.5 minutes on opening day, and were intended to be at that level until around 2013 (the increase to ~6 mins was done in 2010 instead). I imagine the SLS peak frequencies will go down quickly to 4-5 mins, as we'll be taking a continuous stream of new SkyTrain vehicles right through the 2020s and 2030s.

I do see the possibility of that short-turn terminus being moved east from KG Station to 140 St, since there's going to be a proper pocket track built just east of that station. Makes sense too since Surrey has extended its city centre boundary in light of the 140 St station. Conversely, the switches near Gateway could be used to turn around trains that do Langley to Surrey Central runs (maybe as 2-car shuttles). I think this would be feasible down the road with the growth of DT Surrey.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Hoping Newton gets built as part of a separate line. The long-term burden to both TransLink and riders of a tri-branched route outweighs any kind of short-term political gain.

Originally Posted by cornholio

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.

I'm certain that the residents of New Orleans are more than happy to reassure us that levees never break. I'm sure the residents of Japan (or even just Burnaby and New West) will remind us that flooding never disrupts train service.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hoping Newton gets built as part of a separate line

Perhaps Newton - KGB - Guilford (the "L" design) and then across the Fraser and up to Coquitlam Centre?

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Perhaps Newton - KGB - Guilford (the "L" design) and then across the Fraser and up to Coquitlam Centre?

I second this. Wasn't the Port Mann bridge built with the potential to carry a rail line?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Perhaps Newton - KGB - Guilford (the "L" design) and then across the Fraser and up to Coquitlam Centre?

Pitched that one over in the Fantasy thread. If done right, it could even interchange with the Millennium at Coq Centre and take over the Lafarge Lake spur, while the M runs to PoCo.

Originally Posted by rpvan

I second this. Wasn't the Port Mann bridge built with the potential to carry a rail line?

Was it built to carry a SkyTrain? These bridges are often pitched as being "BRT/LRT compatible" (and only those two) by the province, then nothing ever comes of it.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hoping Newton gets built as part of a separate line. The long-term burden to both TransLink and riders of a tri-branched route outweighs any kind of short-term political gain.



I'm certain that the residents of New Orleans are more than happy to reassure us that levees never break. I'm sure the residents of Japan (or even just Burnaby and New West) will remind us that flooding never disrupts train service.

If you dont build adequate dikes or dont maitain them you can only blaim your self in that case. Your examples dont change the fact that dikes are a non issue. We already have dikes all over the region and nothing changes beyond the dikes getting higher. I suggest you spend some time in various parts of the Netherlands to see the leading edge technology that is in place there. Building dikes, canals, under water, over water etc.

[Axe]

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.

Here is the plan for the area around the 190th station, this was BEFORE it was changed from LRT to skytrain

https://www.surrey.ca/files/EastClay...ril_282014.pdf

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Was it built to carry a SkyTrain? These bridges are often pitched as being "BRT/LRT compatible" (and only those two) by the province, then nothing ever comes of it.

Yes that's usually just fluff to help appease transit supporters.

I mean can you build a modern bridge like that and somehow it couldn't support a light rail train?

I'm sure even bridges like the Alex Fraser could support a passenger LRT/Skytrain.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by fredinno

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? )


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?

Translink is going to need to buy some land in the vicinity of the Langley Bypass to make the transition from Fraser Highway to Industrial Avenue. I wonder if they will put an OMC in this area since they have to buy some land anyway. However this land appears to be zoned "service commerical" rather than industrial which might make it more expense to acquire, especially if the current owners are expecting a bump in the land value because of the skytrain.

I found the 2014 OCP zoning map here: https://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2014/07...hbourhood.html

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cornholio

If you dont build adequate dikes or dont maitain them you can only blaim your self in that case. Your examples dont change the fact that dikes are a non issue. We already have dikes all over the region and nothing changes beyond the dikes getting higher. I suggest you spend some time in various parts of the Netherlands to see the leading edge technology that is in place there. Building dikes, canals, under water, over water etc.

Sure. Or TransLink could negate the scenario entirely by NOT building a critical piece of infrastructure on a known floodplain, and so they aren't.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes that's usually just fluff to help appease transit supporters.

I mean can you build a modern bridge like that and somehow it couldn't support a light rail train?

I'm sure even bridges like the Alex Fraser could support a passenger LRT/Skytrain.

Well, City Hall's not going ahead with the Granville elevated deck mostly because it's too much weight for the centre span. The Port Mann is larger and newer, yes, but I think I'll err on the side of caution until the math comes in proving that a SkyTrain guideway works.

[waves]

So looking at OMC stuff. The size of Edmonds is about 1.2 sq. km with the minimum size of the loop with the buildings a rectangle about 200m by 400m (0.8 sq. km).

Edmonds Station: (8.8 ha)

Source:Me. https://i.imgur.com/l1qPURM.jpg

I thought I would look at potential OMC Sites. I looked at 6 sites and then scored them based on a weighted values chart. Each site is in detail below the chart here:


1) Scott Road. 3rd & 4th Place
Total Area & Zoning = 14 ha Industrial (7 ha south, 7 ha north)
Properties Impacted = 20 (10 south, 10 north)
Property Assessment Value South of Railway = $30.3 million (97% is Land Cost)
Property Assessment Value North of Railway = $30.0 million (99% is Land Cost)
Environmental Impact = Low. Area already zoned and built as industrial. Some trees on North.
Social Impact = Low. Loss of low quality industrial zoned land.
Residential Impacts = Low. Industrial buffer.
Difficulty of Implementation = Hard. Expensive and many expropriations.
Location Value = Low. Near to Edmonds and not on the SLS Line.

Source: Me. https://i.imgur.com/7DlpTim.jpg

2) Green Timbers. 1st Place
Total Area & Zoning = 3.65 ha Urban Park & 4.16 Institutional
Properties Impacted = 0
Property Assessment Value = $0 (Land not zoned for private development)
Environmental Impact = High. Impacts to Trees
Social Impacts = Moderate. Loss of Park Land and loss of Institutional Zoned Land.
Residential Impacts = Low. Park Buffer.
Difficulty of Implementation = Easy. City owned land, low cost.
Location Value = Moderate. On the SLS Line but not at the end.

Source: Me. https://i.imgur.com/eqewvrO.jpg

3) Fleetwood. 6th Place
Total Area & Zoning = 5.52 ha Urban Park
Properties Impacted = 0
Property Assessment Value = $0 (Land not zoned for private development)
Environmental Impact = Minimal. No loss of trees
Social Impact = High. Loss of Park Land and near town center.
Residential Impacts = High. Immediately beside residential zoning.
Difficulty of Implementation = Easy. City owned land, low cost.
Location Value = Good. In the middle of the SLS Line but not at the end.

Source: Me. https://i.imgur.com/kLDTKVx.jpg

4) Serpentine. 5th Place
Total Area & Zoning = 3.25 ha Urban Residential 3.87 ha ALR
Properties Impacted = 3
Property Assessment Value = $15.0 million
Environmental Impact = Moderate. Open land, some loss of ALR land.
Social Impact = Moderate. Some loss of ALR land.
Residential Impacts = Moderate. Next to brand new subdivision.
Difficulty of Implementation = Hard. Would require exception to the ALR.
Location Value = Good. In the middle of the SLS Line but not at the end.

Source: Me. https://i.imgur.com/6ARLxPf.jpg

5) Clayton. 7th & 8th Place
Total Area & Zoning = 19.7 ha Frequent Transit Development Area (East 12.25 ha, West 7.45 ha)
Properties Impacted = 13 (6 east, 7 west)
Property Assessment Value East of end of 67 Ave = $36.5 million (99% is Land Value)
Property Assessment Value West of End of 67 Ave = $8.3 million (98% is Land Value)
Environmental Impact = Moderate. Open land and some loss of trees.
Social Impact = High. Loss of Frequent Transit Development Area
Residential Impacts = High. Next to Village Center.
Difficulty of Implementation = Hard. Expensive and many land use changes.
Location Value = Good. Near the end of the SLS Line.

Source: Me. https://i.imgur.com/aYd5EKt.jpg

6) City of Langley. 2nd Place
Total Area & Zoning = 7.12 ha Industrial
Properties Impacted = 4
Property Assessment Value North of Railway = $46.7 million (85% is Land Cost)
Environmental Impact = Low. Area already zoned and built as industrial.
Social Impact = Moderate. Loss of high quality industrial zoned land.
Residential Impacts = Low. Industrial buffer.
Difficulty of Implementation = Moderate. Expensive and a few expropriations with industrial buildings.
Location Value = Good. At the end of the SLS Line.

Source: Me. https://i.imgur.com/2BmQSzT.jpg

[Migrant_Coconut]

That must've taken a while... nice work. So I guess the best option really is Langley City.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i wonder if Edmonds will ever get a large expansion into the property which is now the storage facility. it seems like the expansions will need more maintenance space, not just storage.

the area is already full of BC Government office. (BC Hydro, BCRTC) so it would seem a natural expansion. although it would probably be moderately costly.

[officedweller]

Thanks!

I doubt it would go in the City of Langley.
If the project is phased, it's not in Phase 1.
It's also in an area that may be intensively redeveloped with the arrival of SkyTrain.

Green Timbers has issues because it is parkland.
Remember the fuss when trees were to be cut down through Green Timbers for the LRT?

I also don;t think it would go in any of the areas slated for intensification - Fleetwood or Clayton.

Scott Road is my guess, but that would require curtailment of the mainline while switches are installed or the guideway reconstructed.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So I guess the best option really is Langley City.

It depends somewhat on what values are important. If the environment is weighted higher and more important, then Langley City is the clear winner, but if cost is the more important factor, then Green Timbers becomes the winner.

There weren't really that many spots that poked out at me as being suitable for an OMC along the whole line. I feel like my "Fleetwood" option was really grasping at straws. I only looked at that one spot in the City of Langley; maybe there are other spots that others see that could do better on cost?

[nname]

Originally Posted by waves

It depends somewhat on what values are important. If the environment is weighted higher and more important, then Langley City is the clear winner, but if cost is the more important factor, then Green Timbers becomes the winner.

There weren't really that many spots that poked out at me as being suitable for an OMC along the whole line. I feel like my "Fleetwood" option was really grasping at straws. I only looked at that one spot in the City of Langley; maybe there are other spots that others see that could do better on cost?

For the entire route from King George, there doesn't seems to be a suitable place for OMC until Langley. Even at Langley, the land is so close to the city centre, wouldn't it be more suitable for mid or high-density residential/commercial redevelopment than sticking an OMC there?

For Langley, I was thinking of the area between Production Way and the railway tracks. But it's probably similar to your Industrial way site...

[Rico]

I assume they don't have enough space in the existing yards for the required trains...if so a new OMC would have to be before Fleetwood.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Rico

I assume they don't have enough space in the existing yards for the required trains...if so a new OMC would have to be before Fleetwood.

For SkyTrain, enough space in OMC not required, and storing trains on the mainline overnight is used to facilitate early morning service ramp up. In fact, I don't think there were ever enough space at OMC since the late 90s...

See page 43 of this pdf: https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...ice-Report.pdf

[waves]

Originally Posted by nname

For the entire route from King George, there doesn't seems to be a suitable place for OMC until Langley. Even at Langley, the land is so close to the city centre, wouldn't it be more suitable for mid or high-density residential/commercial redevelopment than sticking an OMC there?

The land there currently is zoned and used as Industrial land. If it wasn't used as an OMC, I don't feel as though the City of Langley would be willing to change it. They may not even be keen on it being expropriated for an OMC.

For Langley, I was thinking of the area between Production Way and the railway tracks. But it's probably similar to your Industrial way site...

So I actually did briefly look at that site. It would have 7 properties impacted which is 3 more than the other site. The total assessed value is $53.3 million with 90% of that being Land Cost. It is 8.4 ha, but, the site would be long an thin and might not actually work from an OMC design point (it's only 140m wide. In comparison the other site is 200m wide). You might have to get creative and/or limit what the site can do.

[cornholio]

They can run the track for another 1300 meters to the ALR land next to the small airport. Looks like Belmont farms. They could even put in a future ground level station there with a nice park and ride like is done in other cities that run a track out to a depot location.

This could be the easiest and maybe even cheapest solution. If its ALR land that could be a problem, not sure.