Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[ilikeredheads]

Look, I'm not against LRT in general. It has its place if it's implemented properly. However, that is not the case here. It's being shoe-horned by Surrey City Council for political reasons even though Translink's own study has shown that it's a poor business case. If Surrey are the only ones financially responsible for building and operating their pet streetcar, then I wouldn't be so concerned, but they are not. When this project inevitably ends up being a money sinking pit, Translink will once again become the scapegoat.

Remember, Surrey wants to spend a considerable amount of money for an entirely new infrastructure even though it only saves people 1 minute of travel time compared to BRT. WTF?

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

Look, I'm not against LRT in general. It has its place if it's implemented properly. However, that is not the case here. It's being shoe-horned by Surrey City Council for political reasons even though Translink's own study has shown that it's a poor business case. If Surrey are the only ones financially responsible for building and operating their pet streetcar, then I wouldn't be so concerned, but they are not. When this project inevitably ends up being a money sinking pit, Translink will once again become the scapegoat.

Remember, Surrey wants to spend a considerable amount of money for an entirely new infrastructure even though it only saves people 1 minute of travel time compared to BRT. WTF?

Thats largely true, though two things-

First I do not think the project will not be successful, it will likely have alot of riders, in fact I imagine a much bigger increase will happen at least initially with LRT vs. BRT.
Second, you are right about the business case vs. Skytrain, however the L at least will be hard to justify (and harder to pay for) for quite some time. I think Surrey is tying to 'MTR' this one. I look at the L-Line as a 50/50 transport vs. development project. Surrey wants to draw development, and if their is anything I am certain of irrespective of opinions on LRT is that LRT will draw more development than BRT, simply because the permanence sells better, saying their is a bus station just doesn't have the same ring to it as a train station (I'm purposely phrasing it somewhat dishonestly to make a point).

Everyone seems unhappy that they are going with LRT on 104 and KGB but Imo it's fine, I imagine at the end of the day we will come out with an Expo Line Extension and a new LRT line. I think it's hard to debate that serving the L will full grade separation makes sense and since Surrey is locked on it to draw development we probably aren't seeing BRT. From what I can glean most people on the forum think LRT has a place and that it could be better than BRT the Argument really just centres around allocations of funds and prioritization. -Again Imo extension to Langley is a bigger priority, but per cost Surrey can probably get more development for the L and also they might be holding off to see if the province comes to the table with increased funds so that Fraser can be a Skytrain, idk.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I really don't think if there were THAT many unexpected costs you'd still see cities building LRT en mass. I mean look Toronto and LA both are much larger than Surrey and they are building LRT's. Obviously these cities aren't the be all and end all, but in particular Toronto is no less busy and full of people than Surrey, (they even have people driving into streetcar tunnels) yet they are still investing tremendously in LRT (alongside commuter rail, subway lines, and her) . I think the reason the comment about you not liking LRT was made was because you don't seem to want to entertain that their might be any positives to LRT, as Ive always said there are routes where LRT doesn't make sense for the region, I just won't go so far as to write the tech off for use in some places.

Imo there's never going to be one solution or even 2 solutions (buses, Skytrain) to our transportation needs numerous cities have very successful BRT, LRT , RRT and Commuter Rail lines. As we all know with transit implementation of the technology is usually the most important thing (eg Canada Line vs. ART Lines or 99 B-Bline vs. LA Orange Line). Since at this point LRT on the L line sounds like a done deal, I think it would be more productive if people turned their efforts to ensuring RRT is build on Fraser and that the L-Line is implemented in an excellent way (full signal priority. High quality stops, public realm improvement, good integration with current transit). In the end it may end up being serendipitous since now instead of getting LRT on all three, or BRT and RRT it's looking like we might get LRT AND RRT.

I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point. I do not think you're being ridiculous, but I think you think I'm being ridiculous.

- Vancouver has a fully automated, grade separated, so accident-free that the media has to blow up every 10 minute delay like the world is ending. It is what everyone points to when "that is how you do a proper rapid transit system", there may have been a few mistakes made (like not having wide enough cars, or the LIM motors could have been better designed, or not building barriers at platform level) during the process, but none of those have made the system worse.

- Surrey wants to destroy this reputation by building the worst-possible LRT ever designed by putting down a median (thus making it dangerous to get to,) not grade-separating anything (thus making it accident prone), and under-capacity just so score political points with developers. They've cited Portland (which actually has some ROW's for their Light rail lines, but they also run street cars on oneway streets, not down medians.) In cities with LRT systems, the accidents happen so frequently that the media doesn't report on them unless someone is injured.

The consequence of this, is that the number of people taking transit goes down.
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...vestment/8838/


That comes from either the widening or rerouting of highways around the transit system, cutbacks to the bus system so there's less feeder buses, or transit systems being nothing more than a series of park-and-rides that go from nowhere to nowhere and only have one destination that being "downtown".

Surrey's proposal has been nothing short of "this is what the developers want, screw the residents", and we would not be making such a big deal about it had the rapid transit backbone be built first. Go back and check the amount of arguing about the Canada Line being underbuilt and platforms being too small. In 30 years the LRT will more likely be torn up than than refurbished.

Toronto has had street cars since 1861, and yet, people are still incredibly stupid and driving into street car tunnels. Toronto has too heavily invested in street cars to just keep building different incompatible transit systems every decade. So that is why expanding the SRT was likely never going to happen. They've had the option to fix it and run it efficiently but they've instead chosen to run it as inefficiently as possible to justify replacing it with a slower light rail system that integrates with their other street cars. The exact opposite is happening here, Surrey cares nothing for the regional growth strategy and the LRT is just an ends to a means of it's goal of wanting to be the least livable part of BC by making everyone feel like transit is supposed to be awful like in the US.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point. I do not think you're being ridiculous, but I think you think I'm being ridiculous.

- Vancouver has a fully automated, grade separated, so accident-free that the media has to blow up every 10 minute delay like the world is ending. It is what everyone points to when "that is how you do a proper rapid transit system", there may have been a few mistakes made (like not having wide enough cars, or the LIM motors could have been better designed, or not building barriers at platform level) during the process, but none of those have made the system worse.

- Surrey wants to destroy this reputation by building the worst-possible LRT ever designed by putting down a median (thus making it dangerous to get to,) not grade-separating anything (thus making it accident prone), and under-capacity just so score political points with developers. They've cited Portland (which actually has some ROW's for their Light rail lines, but they also run street cars on oneway streets, not down medians.) In cities with LRT systems, the accidents happen so frequently that the media doesn't report on them unless someone is injured.

The consequence of this, is that the number of people taking transit goes down.
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...vestment/8838/


That comes from either the widening or rerouting of highways around the transit system, cutbacks to the bus system so there's less feeder buses, or transit systems being nothing more than a series of park-and-rides that go from nowhere to nowhere and only have one destination that being "downtown".

Surrey's proposal has been nothing short of "this is what the developers want, screw the residents", and we would not be making such a big deal about it had the rapid transit backbone be built first. Go back and check the amount of arguing about the Canada Line being underbuilt and platforms being too small. In 30 years the LRT will more likely be torn up than than refurbished.

Toronto has had street cars since 1861, and yet, people are still incredibly stupid and driving into street car tunnels. Toronto has too heavily invested in street cars to just keep building different incompatible transit systems every decade. So that is why expanding the SRT was likely never going to happen. They've had the option to fix it and run it efficiently but they've instead chosen to run it as inefficiently as possible to justify replacing it with a slower light rail system that integrates with their other street cars. The exact opposite is happening here, Surrey cares nothing for the regional growth strategy and the LRT is just an ends to a means of it's goal of wanting to be the least livable part of BC by making everyone feel like transit is supposed to be awful like in the US.

I hear you though two things, (interesting fact) Torontos LRT's are actually completely incompatible with their streetcars (which have become LRT like) because Torontos Subway and streetcars use a non-standard wide gauge (there's alot of debate as to why but most likely had to do with wagon carriages), also the streetcars or the most part do not operate in a separate ROW except for Spadina and St.Clair.

You make a good point about Portland, their system kind of takes advantage of the flexibility that was discussed and hence it can move alot faster outside of the core areas (pretty much as fast as any rt could).

I don't think you're being ridiculous, I think fundamentally we both would just like more transit of the highest possible order.

I just disagree that Surrey WANTS to destroy our reputation by building LRT

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I just disagree that Surrey WANTS to destroy our reputation by building LRT

Of course they are not aiming to intentionally fuck up the City. It's just byproduct of a political entity wanting to stamp their "legacy" and placate developers and donors.

Little thought has been put into this plan. Renders and projections are so off-point and the entire scope of the project solely seems to encompass on what is best for development rather than transporting the existing populous.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Of course they are not aiming to intentionally fuck up the City. It's just byproduct of a political entity wanting to stamp their "legacy" and placate developers and donors.

Little thought has been put into this plan. Renders and projections are so off-point and the entire scope of the project solely seems to encompass on what is best for development rather than transporting the existing populous.

I agree, but as I've said it seems to be a fine deal, a good time to pivot and pressure then to build the best LRT possible.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I agree, but as I've said it seems to be a fine deal, a good time to pivot and pressure then to build the best LRT possible.

I hope that the RFP's actually come back and say that it's impossible to build one to meet the reliability/grade requirements and recommend going with BRT or not proceeding at all.

Ottawa's sure shaping up to be worse than driving:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...lans-1.3997741

Details emerged when the massive staff report was made public Feb. 17: the trip from the Ottawa International Airport to downtown would take about 40 minutes.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I hope that the RFP's actually come back and say that it's impossible to build one to meet the reliability/grade requirements and recommend going with BRT or not proceeding at all.

Ottawa's sure shaping up to be worse than driving:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...lans-1.3997741

Well considering Ottawa's system has full grade separation I don't think I'd agree....

Well that's highly unlikely, an RFP is basically saying here we have business for you! No company is going to say that they can't deliver (they'll most likely be able to) even if they found they couldn't that's what our friends at Bombardier are for!

http://www.news1130.com/2017/02/24/c...-a-settlement/

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I agree, but as I've said it seems to be a fine deal, a good time to pivot and pressure then to build the best LRT possible.

the best LRT possible is to not build one at all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

the best LRT possible is to not build one at all.

Or to dig a tunnel (at least for the Whalley section). Which, of course, would make it almost as expensive as the SkyTrain option.

Too many goddamn cross-streets. Light rail is best built on non-arterials or former rail corridors where traffic interaction is limited.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

the best LRT possible is to not build one at all.

Well as you probably know, I think the issues brought up are somewhat overblown and that LRT can work, Id like to see Fraser Highway be built first as much as anyone but, that's unlikely at this point without significant delay, which is why Ive moved beyond trying to push for BRT in order to fund Fraser immediately. I've seen LRT at its worse which would be 0 signal priority as well as poor shelters and public realm elements, and Im going to keep advocating that we push for the best system of LRT possible.

At this point Im pretty certain that LRT will end up being built on 104 and KGB so it's probably in everyone's best interest (certainly when we see any more progress in this direction) to advocate for a high quality system. Simply saying LRT is bad and LRT can never work (things that can be contested imo) won't do much to ensure a better system.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

At this point Im pretty certain that LRT will end up being built on 104 and KGB so it's probably in everyone's best interest (certainly when we see any more progress in this direction) to advocate for a high quality system. Simply saying LRT is bad and LRT can never work (things that can be contested imo) won't do much to ensure a better system.

Since the final project details, nor the funding have been secured, in my opinion it is totally fair to continue advocating for a grade separated system and to continue criticizing at-grade LRT.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

Since the final project details, nor the funding have been secured, in my opinion it is totally fair to continue advocating for a grade separated system and to continue criticizing at-grade LRT.

But, the point is that grade separated doesn't belong on these routes for the foreseeable future, so really it should just be advocating for Expo Line to Langley, but Surrey doesn't what that to happen first because City Centre has alot more to gain from a system that requires a transfer I.e. BRT or LRT than from Skytrain which allows residents further down the line to bypass city centre for Metrotown or even DT Van. I think this definetly plays a part in the ordering of construction, because I think it's obvious that once things are said and done RT will come out as the winner on Fraser.

Whether or not you think LRT is a terrible solution or a great solution or a mediocre run of the mill solution, the city wants it for development, and residents along the line are probably going to want a train over a bus (developers certainly will), so we are kind of dead locked to LRT if we don't just build Fraser first. Remembering that the less transit inclined public isn't going spend time debating the inherent flaws on non-grade separated transit, most people will probably say: train or bus? TRAIN!

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

...the less transit inclined public ... will probably say ... TRAIN!

This is the whole reason advocacy is important. Making people aware of the issues at stake is a good thing. Just because the City or the developers want a train doesn't mean that it's the right decision to be made.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

This is the whole reason advocacy is important. Making people aware of the issues at stake is a good thing. Just because the City or the developers want a train doesn't mean that it's the right decision to be made.

Humour me, what is you ideal solution? I'm genuinely curious on how you think things should be staged

[waves]

Originally Posted by Surrey Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis

"All alternatives attract new transit trips through improvements in speed, reliability and high peak frequencies of service. BRT and LRT (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) are at street-level and attract similar numbers of trips as a result of similar improvements in speed and reliability"

"The analysis and a subsequent peer review have found no evidence of signifi cant difference in urban development outcomes based on the choice of rapid transit technology"

Name/Capital Cost/Lifecycle Cost/New Ridership/Travel Time King George to Langley
BRT (Alternative 1)/$0.9 billion/$0.82 billion/13,500/30min
LRT (Alternative 3)/$2.18 billion/$1.63 billion/12,000/29min

Study Link

Travel time was not listed for Newton to King George, but with even more intersections than Fraser Highway, LRT is likely to perform no better on the L-Line than it would there.

To me it's starkly clear that BRT is the better solution for the L-Line

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by waves

Travel time was not listed for Newton to King George, but with even more intersections than Fraser Highway, LRT is likely to perform no better on the L-Line than it would there.

To me it's starkly clear that BRT is the better solution for the L-Line

To entertain this line of thought, one of my main concerns on BRT would be significant creep. Alot of the big benefits in a BRT would require the same infra as LRT.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit_creep

[waves]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

To entertain this line of thought, one of my main concerns on BRT would be significant creep. Alot of the big benefits in a BRT would require the same infra as LRT.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit_creep

BRT does not require:
> overhead wires (although they may do this anyways)
> relocation of underground utilities
> repavement of the road
> a new OMC
> custom built expensive LRT vehicles (instead can order more articulated buses)
> raised stations (kneeling buses can suffice)

Very little is needed to make a BRT work. Minimally, you could put in a 24/7 bus only camera enforced HOV lane, install signal priority measures, faregates at stations, electronic bus arrival message boards and you would still have a pretty amazing BRT system. For a little extra you could include overhead wires, physical medians and better station shelters.

Can you be more specific in what kind of "creep" you are concerned about?

"BRT creep" refers to how features can be eaten away due to lack of funding or political will, while the other terms typically refer to an expanding scope.

You could say the same about an at-grade LRT. Removal of signal priority measures, reduced frequency, reduced speeds. Both BRT and LRT are susceptible, however since LRT costs more to operate from a fiscal standpoint, you are more likely to see features eaten away from such a system than BRT.

BRT is however susceptible to losing its exclusive right of way. If it does lose that feature then it then Translink would have to call it a B-Line and not a BRT. I'm not convinced this is a serious risk.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I hear you though two things, (interesting fact) Torontos LRT's are actually completely incompatible with their streetcars (which have become LRT like) because Torontos Subway and streetcars use a non-standard wide gauge (there's alot of debate as to why but most likely had to do with wagon carriages), also the streetcars or the most part do not operate in a separate ROW except for Spadina and St.Clair.

I once read that Toronto's street cars are non-standard gauge because they didn't want freight trains using the rails at night back in the day.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I once read that Toronto's street cars are non-standard gauge because they didn't want freight trains using the rails at night back in the day.

From Transit Toronto:

I have heard that standard railway equipment can not operate on TTC tracks. Is this true? And why?

It's true, at least for the legacy streetcar system and Toronto's subway network. Standard railway gauge is 4 feet, 8 1/2 inches, whereas the TTC uses a decidedly non-standard 4 feet 10 7/8 inches. The TTC is the only railway in the world to use this gauge (they and the Halton County Railway Museum, which runs equipment retired from the TTC). The gauge used by Toronto's streetcars and by its subways but not by the Scarborough RT (which uses standard gauge, just to confuse matters), and the gauge has existed since streetcars began operation in Toronto, back in 1861.

In the Articles of Agreement negotiated between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Street Railway on March 26, 1861, article five states the following: "That the gauge of the said railways shall be such that the ordinary vehicles now in use may travel on the said tracks, and that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and every person and persons whatsoever to travel upon and use the said tracks with their vehicles loaded or empty, when and so often as they may please, provided they do not impede or interfere with the cars of the party of the second part (Toronto Street Railway), running thereon, and subject at all times to the right of the said party of the second part, his executors, and administrators and assigns to keep the said tracks with his and their cars, when meeting or overtaking any other vehicle thereon."

Note that there is no mention of a specific gauge in this passage. However, Bill Miller of Electric Lines of Southern Ontario cites Ken Heard, Consultant Museologist, Coordinator, Technology and Transport Museums Sector, Canadian Museums Association, as stating: "One of the terms of these agreements was that the track gauge was to accommodate wagons. As horse car rail was step rail, the horse cars, equipped with iron wheels with flanges on the inside, ran on the outer, or upper step of the rail. Wagon wheels naturally did not have a flange. They were made of wood, with an iron tire. Wagons would use the inner, or lower step of the rail. The upper step of the rail guided the wagons on the track. In order to accommodate this arrangement, the track gauge had to be 4 feet, 11 inches. As the streets themselves were not paved, this arrangement permitted wagons carrying heavy loads a stable roadbed."

This is the definitive story, and not the tale that the odd gauge was selected because the city feared that Mackenzie and Mann would operate steam trains over streetcar tracks (one quoted by the TTC itself). After all, the TTC's unique gauge was in place right from the beginning, 1861, when the issue of Mackenzie and Mann and their ownership of both the TRC and Canadian Northern was over thirty years away. The myth about steam railways is proving a difficult one to put down, however.

The odd gauge was maintained because it was easier to convert streetcar equipment to use the track as each piece arrived, rather than to put in all that work to convert the track. Why did the subways maintain streetcar gauge? When subways were being seriously designed for Toronto in the 1940s, there were suggestions that streetcars could be routed into the subway right-of-way, or be converted into the subway cars themselves. Certainly, a number of streetcars were converted for use as subway work trains, and there has been plenty of mixing of parts between the streetcar and subway network that the two have benefitted from the common gauge.

There are TTC vehicles that operate using standard gauge, however, and more are coming. Although the Scarborough RT was initially designed to be a streetcar line, the ICTS system which replaced it was designed from the ground up, and its design did not allow for interchanging of parts between the subway and RT networks. Finally, there is the new LRT under construction beneath Eglinton Avenue. When the Transit City plan was first proposed, there were suggestions that the new lines and the legacy streetcar network could share maintenance facilities, and thus the two should share the same gauge. When the Transit City proposal was taken up by the provincial government in Move Ontario 2020 -- a wider plan to build 52 public transit projects across the Greater Toronto Area and Waterloo Region -- there was a suggestion that the TTC's legacy gauge should be applied to the LRT projects in Mississauga, Hamilton and Waterloo, creating an "Ontario gauge." However, the ease and simplicity of sticking to the North American standard won out, and Toronto's new LRT lines will be built to standard, rather than TTC gauge.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4002.shtml