Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[nname]

Originally Posted by jhausner

It has nothing to do with politics and has everything to do with how much money is contributed vs how much service is given back.

http://www.southfraser.net/2011/10/e...more-from.html

Note: last time I checked, service in both Langley and South Surrey have cost recovery in the low to mid-20s.

Originally Posted by jhausner

That argument would make sense if any of the SkyTrain lines actually turned a profit. None of them do. They cost more than they take in which is Translink's major stumbling block ultimately. So even if a Broadway line would take in more revenue than an expanded line out in Surrey, it would just mean it was losing LESS money than a line out in Surrey would.

Just for a comparision, for operating cost this year, TransLink is budgeted to get about 10 millions profit from Expo and Millennium Line (have been >100% cost recovery since 2006 I believe), but will have to subsidize about 350 millions for bus services. Don't think its cheap to run all those buses.. they need 350 millions of subsidy every year!

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jhausner

As payment for hijacking this thread for a few pages on non topic related subject matter, I'll post this that based on recent information I've seen, the intersection near Alex Fraser is back to being a full interchange. There are still 3 intersections though. 1 in Tilbury south of the Alex Fraser area, and the 2 just north of Tannery Road.

It's unfortunate but at least the intersection at Alex Fraser looks to be gone. I am still of the opinion there should be no intersections on a route meant mainly for truck traffic since intersections and trucks don't mix very well, but 3 is better than 4 or 5 we heard about 6 months ago.

Any more details you can share with us and post on the SFPR thread? This is good news, as this was the intersection I was primarily worried about. If they could make tannery an interchange as well at least then it would be free flow from #17 to the Pattullo Bridge.

[usog]

Originally Posted by racc

They do return an operating profit. For the Canada Line, the operating profit is being used to finance part of the capital cost. The same would be true for the UBC Line. Not so for any of the SoF options all of which will require operating subsidies for the foreseeable future.

There is also a larger financial risk with the SoF lines as they would likely depend on new development for a significant portion of their ridership revenue. If that development does no materialize, then, the financial performance will suffer and there will be less money available for other transit service SoF and throughout the region.

I'm far from convinced that a lot of high density development will occur SoF at the rate some people are predicting. I suspect that a lot of people want to live in higher density development will prefer to live closer to Vancouver. The fact that Surrey Central is only really getting some life over 20 years after the Expo Line made it there is a good example of this. It even has taken a fair amount of government investment and incentives to get it this far.

The main point is to not just look at the capital costs, look at the total financial performance over the life of the project.

Quite honestly I agree with you and others on a lot of these points that the Broadway Corridor should get priority first. My point is, though, that the facts aren't what are important. The perception that these priorities give is what translink and others shouldn't forget. I mean seriously, everyone remember how much air time Watts got the other month merely by suggesting that Translink needed an audit? I bet she checked with her base and found there was lots of sentiment supporting such a move which is why she made such a statement. If SOF keeps getting second-class/hand-me-down bus service, if they go through with tolling basically all the major routes through Surrey, and if they make a big show of dropping huge amounts of money on Vancouver/Burnaby again, it'll just get worse. Just throw the SOF region a bone, possibly delaying a Broadway project for a bit, and things will go way smoother imo considering how much Translink relies on consensus.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

you keep saying UBC will make a profit but a good chuck of the riders holds U-pass which are way cheaper then 1, 2, or 3 and i'm willing to bet a most of SoF is gonna get 2 and 3 zone passes. which would make up a good price difference.
which makes me have my doubts broadway would make more then a SoF line.

This isn't the first time you've used that argument. I have my doubts a SoF line would generate more revenue than the UBC line despite the differences in fare prices.

First thing, ridership on a SoF line would be significantly less than that of the UBC line. The Broadway corridor already handles more than 100,000 riders per day, and that is pretty much at capacity with riders spilling to adjacent routes. The UBC line would free up capacity for those riders travelling on adjacent routes and attract additional riders. UBC line would carry well beyond 100,000 riders a day, which is already more than the Canada and Millennium line. The ridership is already there to justify the UBC line.

Second, the ridership along the Broadway corridor provides something SoF does not: economies of scale. It is simply more cost-efficient for a transit vehicle to carry a full load than a half-empty load; cost of fares is secondary. A jam-packed bus of UPass holders will cover the operating costs more so than a half-empty bus of passengers carrying 2 or 3 zone passes. And for the record, only 1/3 of the ridership along the Broadway corridor is UBC bound, the remaining 2/3 can be assumed to be paying full fares. But the point is the larger riderships and packed transit vehicles of the Broadway corridor have better economies of scale than corridors in SoF and thus discounted fares along the Broadway corridor is still more economically viable compared to SoF. Case-in-point: Hong Kong's subway system which traverses through very dense areas and has extremely high riderships is able to make a profit through fare revenue DESPITE it's low fares.

Third, dense compact neighbourhoods (especially those with streets in a grid layout) are more economically viable for transit than spread-out neighbourhoods. I really don't need to explain this. Again, look at Hong Kong, subway lines don't need to be extensive because their city is compact. Surrey's large land mass and dispersed populations requires transit service and infrastructure to be extended through large distances, thus large capital and operating costs.
http://voony.files.wordpress.com/201...on_density.jpg

And those are only reasons for the UBC line based on revenue generation.

Don't forget about regional importance; Central Broadway and UBC are the 2nd and 3rd, respectively, commuter destinations after downtown. The fact that these two are not adequately served by transit is a big issue. 50% of commuters to Central Broadway come from outside of Vancouver; a UBC line will thus be of regional benefit. A Surrey line will primarily serve only residents of Surrey.

Surrey has also been getting (and will be getting) a significant amount of transportation dollars, it's just that it's largely in road and bridge construction: Port Mann, SFPR, Patullo bridge. It also has been approved an increase in transit service including the KG B-line. It has been an unofficial prerequisite that a B-line be in place before investments in rapid transit take place (excluding expo line which predates the b-line); Surrey should be no different. Just because Surrey is quickly growing in population does not justify large transit expenditures. Vancouver at sometime saw a rapid growth in population, it didn't get rapid transit immediately. It received gradual transit improvements prior to rapid transit. And that's what's being approved in Surrey, gradual transit improvements (see TransLink's supplemental plan). In time, Surrey will get rapid transit; but I don't believe it's fair for the Broadway corridor to wait when it has been in the plans for rapid transit for quite a while now.

[andasen]

Some interestesting numbers I got from a few (VERY) rough estimates concerning populations along road corridors in the SoF.

Fraser Highway
5811 People/KM (To Langley)
5030 People/km (to 168th St)

King George (to 72 ave)
9708 People/km

104th
10471 People/km


Scott Road/112th (to 68th Ave)
8658 People/KM

104/112 (Guildford to 112th/68th via Surrey Central and the rail corridor)
9700 People/KM


**For Comparison**

Evergreen line
6695 People/km

**DISCLAIMER**

The population figures are for census tracts adjacent to (or nearly adjacent if a census tract is substantially smaller than average). They are indicators of populations in trying to anticipate what corridors could best facilitate pedestrian boardings from the surrounding area instead of relying on feeder busses. For dealing on the pedestrian scale unless you are in an area with very small census tracts then they are mostly useless for trying to get any real insights into pedestrian scaled questions. As such, it isn't perfect for making comparisons between the Evergreen Line and potencial rapid transit corridors South of the Fraser. Take the data with several grains of salt.


Hopefully I've given you food for thought at the very least and I'll get the numbers for the broadway corridor when I get the chance.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by squeezied

This isn't the first time you've used that argument. I have my doubts a SoF line would generate more revenue than the UBC line despite the differences in fare prices.

First thing, ridership on a SoF line would be significantly less than that of the UBC line. The Broadway corridor already handles more than 100,000 riders per day, and that is pretty much at capacity with riders spilling to adjacent routes. The UBC line would free up capacity for those riders travelling on adjacent routes and attract additional riders. UBC line would carry well beyond 100,000 riders a day, which is already more than the Canada and Millennium line. The ridership is already there to justify the UBC line.

Second, the ridership along the Broadway corridor provides something SoF does not: economies of scale. It is simply more cost-efficient for a transit vehicle to carry a full load than a half-empty load; cost of fares is secondary. A jam-packed bus of UPass holders will cover the operating costs more so than a half-empty bus of passengers carrying 2 or 3 zone passes. And for the record, only 1/3 of the ridership along the Broadway corridor is UBC bound, the remaining 2/3 can be assumed to be paying full fares. But the point is the larger riderships and packed transit vehicles of the Broadway corridor have better economies of scale than corridors in SoF and thus discounted fares along the Broadway corridor is still more economically viable compared to SoF. Case-in-point: Hong Kong's subway system which traverses through very dense areas and has extremely high riderships is able to make a profit through fare revenue DESPITE it's low fares.

Third, dense compact neighbourhoods (especially those with streets in a grid layout) are more economically viable for transit than spread-out neighbourhoods. I really don't need to explain this. Again, look at Hong Kong, subway lines don't need to be extensive because their city is compact. Surrey's large land mass and dispersed populations requires transit service and infrastructure to be extended through large distances, thus large capital and operating costs.
http://voony.files.wordpress.com/201...on_density.jpg

And those are only reasons for the UBC line based on revenue generation.

Don't forget about regional importance; Central Broadway and UBC are the 2nd and 3rd, respectively, commuter destinations after downtown. The fact that these two are not adequately served by transit is a big issue. 50% of commuters to Central Broadway come from outside of Vancouver; a UBC line will thus be of regional benefit. A Surrey line will primarily serve only residents of Surrey.

Surrey has also been getting (and will be getting) a significant amount of transportation dollars, it's just that it's largely in road and bridge construction: Port Mann, SFPR, Patullo bridge. It also has been approved an increase in transit service including the KG B-line. It has been an unofficial prerequisite that a B-line be in place before investments in rapid transit take place (excluding expo line which predates the b-line); Surrey should be no different. Just because Surrey is quickly growing in population does not justify large transit expenditures. Vancouver at sometime saw a rapid growth in population, it didn't get rapid transit immediately. It received gradual transit improvements prior to rapid transit. And that's what's being approved in Surrey, gradual transit improvements (see TransLink's supplemental plan). In time, Surrey will get rapid transit; but I don't believe it's fair for the Broadway corridor to wait when it has been in the plans for rapid transit for quite a while now.

1) Why oh why must revenue be the basis of what gets built first? Is Translink a for profit business? Is that their mandate? Or is their mandate to provide a decent transportation network THROUGHOUT THE REGION????

2) The fact that Surrey is growing quickly IS the reason, the sole justification why its justified that it needs large transit expenditures. It is where people CAN AFFORD to live. They cannot do so in the Broadway corridor, I doubt you can have a house or even a condo in the Westside at the same price as in Surrey. Unless you want to halt immigration to a standstill and use that, frankly, paltry 100,000 riders in Broadway as an excuse for the city of Vancouver to jump the queue YET again, it ain't gonna happen


Personally, I find it extremely annoying that we have this stupid regional infighting on which part of the region gets what FIRST. Its kinda sad really, the saga of the extremely long delayed Evergreen Line is enough! If you want UBC Line to go forward, you should lobby so it should come in at the SAME TIME as Surrey Rapid Transit. After all, Surrey has long been subsidizing transit improvements that benefits solely the city of Vancouver, not just on the rail rapid transit but also on trolley buses. Its their turn now, plain and simply!

At the end of the day, the riders of the Broadway corridor still has decent transit today, a few pass ups is nothing and I think the lack of experience of people in this forum living in overpopulated cities where passups happen in heavy rail metro, shows how completely spoiled people here simply simply are. Its like how people here reacted to the Stanley Cup riots....LOL!!!

[dreambrother808]

The issue seems to be that some people SoF have an emotional perception they get less transportation funding, no matter how many times forumers point out otherwise...

100,000 riders is paltry? Should the number of future riders for the Surrey line be referred to as miniscule in comparison?

[trofirhen]

... and noticing that SoF there are (currently) two prinicipal population nodes, one in Richmond (which will continue to grow) and one in Surrey (centered around Whalley) .... be this pie-in-the sky or not ... thinking of the future expansion Metro Vancouver will undergo ... what about an RRT line from Richmond Centre > east to Surrey, stopping at Annacis Isaland, leading through principal points in Surrey up to King George Station, with several local feeder LRT lines terminating at that hub.

Expensive $$ ? Of course. Necessary for te present moment? Probably not, but think 20 or more ahead. This would provide a "backbone" for SoF transit, with the possibility of busses and local LRT tying into it ..... and .... would be the southern part of the "transit beltway," creating a southerly link from King George to the Canada Line in Richmond. Just a silly pipe dream, people will say. Perhaps, but think of the long-term investment.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The issue seems to be that some people SoF have an emotional perception they get less transportation funding, no matter how many times forumers point out otherwise...

100,000 riders is paltry? Should the number of future riders for the Surrey line be referred to as miniscule in comparison?

Yes, 100,000 is paltry, especially given the amount of tax dollars you want to serve those 100,000 riders just to improve the speed even though they already have an adequate transit system in place to service them.

More accurately, the issue seems to be that some people in this forum has an emotional perception that because there is this cool proposal to put in a subway under the Broadway corridor in this cool city of Vancouver vs a boring surface LRT system in the boring ugly city of Surrey where its filled with rednecks, Indo-canadian immigrants, and cookie cutter single family housing, that the cool urban people of Vancouver with their Starbucks lattes in one hand and their I-phones in the other, must have priorty, no matter the cause, and no matter how expensive, and no matter where those tax dollars come from, it must be built first!

You can plug in ridership or revenue numbers all you want but despite that, here is a reason why planners say Surrey must go first, there is a reason why there is overall support for the Surrey Rapid Transit amongst elected officials, and voters to boot. Because at the end of the day, the big picture shows, Surrey is growing, it is where people are moving too, it is where housing is affordable, and they desperately need to provide services that are currently non-existent.

Of all cities in the Metro Vancouver region, Vancouver, with the least affordable of housing and aging population, already has the best transit system already in place TODAY, any improvement should be placed in cities that desperately need it to be at par. And its pretty obvious that after the Evergreen Line, the city that desperately needs improvement is Surrey with is growing, YOUNG population.

[usog]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The issue seems to be that some people SoF have an emotional perception they get less transportation funding, no matter how many times forumers point out otherwise...

100,000 riders is paltry? Should the number of future riders for the Surrey line be referred to as miniscule in comparison?

It's not 'some people SOF', that's what we've been trying to say. Those of us who have grown up and lived here are telling you that it's a majority of people who have the perception. The only way a Broadway project is going through is by consensus due to the way Translink is wonderfully structured, and I think that's not happening unless you make everyone happy beforehand. I mean, just look how much Richmond and Burnaby mayors have had a history of dragging their feet for projects not in their city, and consider the voting power that SOF has.

[nname]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Yes, 100,000 is paltry, especially given the amount of tax dollars you want to serve those 100,000 riders just to improve the speed even though they already have an adequate transit system in place to service them.

And yet it represent about 10% of total transit ridership, or 15% of bus ridership.

I guess our entire transit ridership is paltry...

And I think capacity is more of an issue than speed. There's only so much capacity they can add to the route (which already running 1-2 articulated bus per minute at the busiest time). It would only get worse after the opening of Evergreen Line.

[Cypherus]

I find those who are in favor of the Broadway corridor are those who are from Vancouver, and who don't have to deal with the underfunded capital expenditures to roadways and transit systems south of the Fraser. Growing cities require additional transit funding - you do not turn the other cheek because the population center is not yet as high as the principal regional city.

[nname]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Unless you want to halt immigration to a standstill and use that, frankly, paltry 100,000 riders in Broadway as an excuse for the city of Vancouver to jump the queue YET again, it ain't gonna happen

Well, the unofficial queue:

Millennium Line was built after running 99 B-Line for 6 years.
Canada Line was built after running 98 B-Line for 9 years.
Evergreen Line will be opened after running 97 B-Line for 14 years.
Broadway Line got 99 B-Line for 16 years to date and still yet to have its line.

King George-104th will have their B-Line September this year.
Fraser B-Line is next on the list, but there's no funding for it yet.

According to that, Surrey should get both rapid transit lines after Broadway. For them to getting anything before that is jumping the queue...

[dreambrother808]

And those who are in favour of the Surrey route tend not to be from Vancouver, which naturally brings its own bias.

Underfunded roadways? It's already been well-established here that the lion share of transportation funding has gone to projects which benefit SoF.

As for what Queetz posted, he proves my point that this often comes down to baseless emotional rhetoric.

I am not against rapid transit expansion for Surrey. I just believe that they should follow the pattern of B-Line first, just like every other municipality in Metro Van.

[racc]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

I find those who are in favor of the Broadway corridor are those who are from Vancouver, and who don't have to deal with the underfunded capital expenditures to roadways and transit systems south of the Fraser. Growing cities require additional transit funding - you do not turn the other cheek because the population center is not yet as high as the principal regional city.

It is pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about transit planning that Broadway is an ideal candidate for rapid transit. It has high ridership and high density already. I suspect it is one of the top corridors in North America. Rapid transit on Broadway will decrease costs and increase ridership revenue leaving more money in the system for improved bus service around the region including SoF. It is simply a good investment.

Most of Vancouver is served by buses and many of these areas have transit mode shares of between 15-20%. There is still plenty of opportunity to improve bus service SoF and dramatically increase the number of people using transit. Even with LRT, most of the people south of the Fraser will still have to use the bus to get where they want to do. The LRT does not even offer travel times that are really faster than the buses. It does offer increased capacity but that capacity is likely not needed for decades.

Politically, I suspect Rapid Transit SoF will have to go ahead at the same time as the UBC Line and I am fine with that. It would not make any sense though to build Rapid Transit SoF ahead of the UBC Line. Remember, the UBC Line at least to Arbutus, is a decade or two behind schedule.

[Cypherus]

I suppose that the problem is that there is an unequal distribution of transit projects to SoF despite the region being under Translink's catchment area. I can't remember the study conducted, but it indicated that for every $1.00 a SoF citizen pays to Translink, they receive a negative return of 0.05 cents. That is not what I would call a fair game. I see the lack of bus lanes, LRT, and other mass transit services that would expedite the movement of people SoF.

Surrey needs to be built around a series of transportation nodes to enhance mobility and for the community to be functional and socially desirable. When more money is allocated to locales NoF with priorities yet again shifting to the Broadway corridor, it becomes more disconcerting for those in Surrey who have to continually drive to work and pay exorbitant gas and fuel taxes so the guy in Vancouver can ride the Millennium Line and read the morning paper while holding his latte.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

And those who are in favour of the Surrey route tend not to be from Vancouver, which naturally brings its own bias.

Underfunded roadways? It's already been well-established here that the lion share of transportation funding has gone to projects which benefit SoF.

As for what Queetz posted, he proves my point that this often comes down to baseless emotional rhetoric.

I am not against rapid transit expansion for Surrey. I just believe that they should follow the pattern of B-Line first, just like every other municipality in Metro Van.

I live in Yaletown and work in Granville St. I use the Canada Line to get to the airport, the SKytrain to go to places where SKytrain can take me (i.e. Metrotown), but drive if I need to visit relatives in PoMo, but willl use Evergreen Line when its built. But prior to that, I have lived in Coquitlam and can relate and know full well the pain and suffering SoF residents/taxpayers feel. And you know what other rapid transit debate I'm following closely? Toronto! My god what a mess they are in right now, but I follow cuz I can relate to those poor people suffering due to political mumbo jumbo....

And if you are truly not against rapid transit expansion in SoF, then why do you want it bumped off the queue this time in favour for yet another rapid transit expansion in the city of Vancouver? Again, if you want UBC Line to go sooner, why not lobby to have it built concurrently?

Originally Posted by nname

And yet it represent about 10% of total transit ridership, or 15% of bus ridership.

I guess our entire transit ridership is paltry...

And I think capacity is more of an issue than speed. There's only so much capacity they can add to the route (which already running 1-2 articulated bus per minute at the busiest time). It would only get worse after the opening of Evergreen Line.

It is paltry, it really is! And the main reason for that is decent rapid transit simply doesn't reach most areas of the region. It only serves well on a relatively small area, which is Vancouver, Burnaby, New West and Richmond, and has been like that for decades. You will notice it will stop being too paltry once Evergreen goes on service because for the first time in decades, a large chunk of the region, i.e. NE Sector, will finally have rapid transit solutions to get them off cars and into transit. It won't be just Port Moody and Coquitlam, but also Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows (via WCE and shorter bus connections) as well. And when Surrey gets theirs, it will be yet another large chunk of the region getting improvements with Langley and White Rock also joining in (via shorter bus connections and closer to drive park and rides). Then our regional ridership won't be paltry anymore. Why would anyone be against that?

[Metro-One]

But again Surrey has been given mass transit for nearly 2 decades and has done very little with it until recently. If Surrey was serious about getting mass transit they would initiate tighter zoning laws and try and reduce the sprawl.

Even downtown Coquitlam and Port Moody have been densifying more rapidly than Surrey has around Whalley on the mere promise of rapid transit.

For me this is Surrey's biggest hurdle, is their horrid sprawl, arguably worst out of all the communities in Metro Vancouver (save maybe Delta).

I also think Surrey deserves mass transit, don't get me wrong, but the Evergreen Line and Broadway corridor have always made more sense to me. In fact, Surrey will still have more mass transit stations than Coquitlam when the Evergreen Line is completed.

Surrey is getting a rapid bus via the Port Mann Bridge expansion, that is a decent Mass transit investment (and it look to be a true rapid bus, not just a B-Line)

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

But again Surrey has been given mass transit for nearly 2 decades and has done very little with it until recently. If Surrey was serious about getting mass transit they would initiate tighter zoning laws and try and reduce the sprawl.

Even downtown Coquitlam and Port Moody have been densifying more rapidly than Surrey has around Whalley on the mere promise of rapid transit.

For me this is Surrey's biggest hurdle, is their horrid sprawl, arguably worst out of all the communities in Metro Vancouver (save maybe Delta).

I also think Surrey deserves mass transit, don't get me wrong, but the Evergreen Line and Broadway corridor have always made more sense to me. In fact, Surrey will still have more mass transit stations than Coquitlam when the Evergreen Line is completed.

Surrey is getting a rapid bus via the Port Mann Bridge expansion, that is a decent Mass transit investment (and it look to be a true rapid bus, not just a B-Line)

You can blame that ugly little troll known as Doug McCallum for that. He was the one that help kill the $75 vehicle levy that would have assured continued rapid transit expansion, and was one of the reasons why RAV was such a regional dividing issue. Ultimately, he didn't do anything about the sprawl and was Kevin Falcon's right hand man who led to more car oriented highway expansion projects. Thank goodness he lost the municipal elections (due to a sex scandal....very disturbing) and paved way for Dianne Watts, who has been trying to undo his damage ever since....

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

And if you are truly not against rapid transit expansion in SoF, then why do you want it bumped off the queue this time in favour for yet another rapid transit expansion in the city of Vancouver? Again, if you want UBC Line to go sooner, why not lobby to have it built concurrently?

I don't believe that we can afford them both at the same time. Ideally, we could but in the end we might have to choose one over the other.