Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Note that those buses are mostly empty. I know I wasn't there, but the problem seems more to do with the buses bunching up due to traffic (common problem here too).



Holy crap, it's like Aliens vs Predator. Which one's which, I wonder?

Ah, but this is a key difference I'm trying to point out buses have lower capacity, but also no matter what you will need to install signal ppriority if you don't want significant bunching issues (which will still be difficult to avoid) if you run buses at some ridiculous frequency.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Ah, but this is a key difference I'm trying to point out buses have lower capacity, but also no matter what you will need to install signal ppriority if you don't want significant bunching issues (which will still be difficult to avoid) if you run buses at some ridiculous frequency.

Nope, you said "Eaxh (sic) streetcar requires 3 buses to substitute for the decreased capacity." The TTC is clearly not sending out three buses to replace each streetcar; nor is that even needed, since an articulated bus can actually carry slightly more people than a CLRV. And if the streetcar is usually as empty as that bus is, capacity isn't even a problem!

And now we're doing the circlejerk again. If frequencies need to be ridiculous, it's time to grade separate; in the meantime, one artic every 3-4 minutes will do. It's not like surface trams have never bunched up because of delays or congestion.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Nope, you said "Eaxh (sic) streetcar requires 3 buses to substitute for the decreased capacity." The TTC is clearly not sending out three buses to replace each streetcar; nor is that even needed, since an articulated bus can actually carry slightly more people than a CLRV. And if the streetcar is usually as empty as that bus is, capacity isn't even a problem!

And now we're doing the circlejerk again. If frequencies need to be ridiculous, it's time to grade separate; in the meantime, one artic every 3-4 minutes will do. It's not like surface trams have never bunched up because of delays or congestion.

They do actually send them out at about a 3 to one rate, and CLRV's certainly don't have a lower capacity than artics.

The main point being there is a clear capacity middle ground between buses , light rail, and fully gs rail, and you very well may be in need of more than bus level capacity with less capital than Skytrain would require. However as we know light rail/streetcar systems have a higher cost recovery, cost less to maintain (much simpler mechanically), and last much longer (look at the CLRV's they have lasted about 40 years).

The problem here is that while there is a growing need to add capacity (and density) on certain corridors there is not the upfront capital to fund the obvious skytrain links right now, building out KGB/ 104 allows densification with a very limited capital budget with a system that will still cost far less to operate and have a MUCH lower life cycle cost than a BRT system.

[Reecemartin]

An interesting question I would have is whether we will see CVM's on trains like we do in some other cities and how fares will work when the LRT goes live.

Also in the interim any plans to improve the 96 with better shelters, next bus signs? Seems the city could easily fund those as well.

[Sheba]

I'm going to put this here

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

... as we all know upgrades can be expensive but virtually always lead to a lower cost of operation (which is much more important with the infrastructure we are talking about which will last for decades and decades to come)

You're for upgrading the existing Skytrain lines and at the same time advocating for LRT - which has already been shown to have a poor business case and a higher cost of operations.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

They do actually send them out at about a 3 to one rate, and CLRV's certainly don't have a lower capacity than artics.

The main point being there is a clear capacity middle ground between buses , light rail, and fully gs rail, and you very well may be in need of more than bus level capacity with less capital than Skytrain would require. However as we know light rail/streetcar systems have a higher cost recovery, cost less to maintain (much simpler mechanically), and last much longer (look at the CLRV's they have lasted about 40 years).

The problem here is that while there is a growing need to add capacity (and density) on certain corridors there is not the upfront capital to fund the obvious skytrain links right now, building out KGB/ 104 allows densification with a very limited capital budget with a system that will still cost far less to operate and have a MUCH lower life cycle cost than a BRT system.

Articulated bus. Same capacity as LRT. No driver and a fraction of the cost to build.


http://www.newmobility.global/autono...rain-test-run/

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

They do actually send them out at about a 3 to one rate, and CLRV's certainly don't have a lower capacity than artics.

Note that an artic is about a bus and a half.

CLRV/ALRV: 132/205 passengers

Mercedes-Benz Citaro (3-door, 2-car): 158 passengers.

Mercedes-Benz CapaCity (4-door, 2-car): 192 passengers.

Your move.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The main point being there is a clear capacity middle ground between buses , light rail, and fully gs rail, and you very well may be in need of more than bus level capacity with less capital than Skytrain would require. However as we know light rail/streetcar systems have a higher cost recovery, cost less to maintain (much simpler mechanically), and last much longer (look at the CLRV's they have lasted about 40 years).

If you're talking about a niche existing between bus and light metro, then yes, there is - that was never in question. The LRT/RRT debate stems from others question entirely: "Is the corridor going to outgrow the LRT? Would the LRT hamper efforts to upgrade the line and increase capacity? If so, shouldn't we build RRT to begin with?"

On Arbutus or the interurban, the answer is clearly no - you'll likely have nothing but townhomes and mid-rises for the forseeable future. LRT is fine.

In Surrey, the plan is to densify Newton-Whalley-Guildford until it rivals Yaletown or Metrotown or Brentwood. At that point, LRT will not be fine - it'll be in the way of a SkyTrain, and trying to move it above/below KGB will involve serious disruption of service.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The problem here is that while there is a growing need to add capacity (and density) on certain corridors there is not the upfront capital to fund the obvious skytrain links right now, building out KGB/ 104 allows densification with a very limited capital budget with a system that will still cost far less to operate and have a MUCH lower life cycle cost than a BRT system.

But the B-Line/BRT only needs to last a decade; remember, they can build the Langley extension right now with the money for both LRT lines. We get a new SkyTrain line every 7 years; even if you add about 3-4 years for political obstruction and/or construction delays, that means that ten or so years later, both routes have SkyTrain!

If Surrey builds an LRT now, they're stuck with it until the end of its life (40 years, you said?). As any parent will tell you, instant gratification is not a virtue.

[flipper316]

I wonder how the future of the LRT will play out with Hepner's buddy Moonbeam on his way out.

[GMasterAres]

Hepner may be out too, there is no guarantee that she will win re-election. She won largely, in my opinion of course, riding the coat tails of Dianne Watts and her party's name, but now has had to stand on her own and am unsure how the electorate will react. It will come down to who stands up to run against her I guess.

From gang violence in Newton that many will blame the mayor and council over not addressing (rightly or wrongly), to controversy over 105 ave, controversy over the LRT specifically affects on 104th (Surrey Central issues), the blow up of the Whalley Strip, to issues related to over densification with not enough parking and infrastructure to handle it in areas like Clayton or Grandview/Morgan Crossing, to the fight starting to take place about the Eaglequest re-development and densification down on 152nd and 80th->76nd. The list goes on.

Things haven't been all roses for Mayor Hepner during this council cycle and while there have been strides made on the innovation boulevard and development in Surrey Central in the past few years, a lot of that did start under Dianne Watts and Mayor Hepner was not directly responsible for that direction.

So it isn't a for sure thing in Surrey that she will be Mayor again after October 20th.

I do like the idea of just going forward with SkyTrain extension to Langley with the capital money that is available now then dealing with LRT later. Truth be told I honestly feel SkyTrain to Langley would have a far bigger impact not just regionally but specifically for Surrey itself than the LRT line which, as has been pointed out probably 1,000 times already, is really not needed with the current 96-B line service. I feel fairly strongly the 96-B line is meeting the needs along that corridor from a commuter/traffic impact standpoint and let's face it:

1. Densification will happen in Surrey Central with or without LRT and is happening NOW, and LRT isn't needed for those living in the core because a) they can walk pretty much everywhere, and b) there is no real need to go to Newton or Guildford on a regular basis that a car doesn't work for or the current B-Line/Bus service
2. Densification along 104th is a good decade away at best, much of the stretch is already developed either with that massive empty building, or commercial space.
3. Densification in Newton is probably more like 2 decades away at best, they've already been talking about it for 15 years and have gone through 2 separate land-use plans that were never really executed
4. There's more people living within 1km of Fraser Highway between Surrey and Langley than there is within 1km of KGB and 104th between Newton through Surrey Central to Guildford.

Is it going to happen that way, probably not though.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'm going to put this here



You're for upgrading the existing Skytrain lines and at the same time advocating for LRT - which has already been shown to have a poor business case and a higher cost of operations.

LRT as I mentioned is going to have a lower capital cost, sometimes you need to make difficult decisions with regard to these things.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Articulated bus. Same capacity as LRT. No driver and a fraction of the cost to build.


http://www.newmobility.global/autono...rain-test-run/

Theres a big difference between a Chienese prototype vehicle and an actual build ready system.

[Gordon]

The 96 B Line was originally supposed to terminate in White Rock, I wonder if this will ever happen.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The problem here is that while there is a growing need to add capacity (and density) on certain corridors there is not the upfront capital to fund the obvious skytrain links right now, building out KGB/ 104 allows densification with a very limited capital budget with a system that will still cost far less to operate and have a MUCH lower life cycle cost than a BRT system.

Do you have numbers on the life cycle costs for LRT and BRT? Make the assumption that BRT will be in place for 40 years (which it wouldn't be because it's a lot easier to replace with something that has more capacity, but let's make the assumption to make the comparisons easier).

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

LRT as I mentioned is going to have a lower capital cost, sometimes you need to make difficult decisions with regard to these things.

I'm not sure if you posted your facts in another post/page but I would have to question where you're coming up with LRT having a lower capital cost. For all accounts we've seen out of Translink (and I'm talking strictly the Fraser Highway comparison as that has been done officially), LRT capital costs are very nearly the same as SkyTrain down the same corridor.

While vehicles are cheaper to purchase the amount of work required infrastructure wise is considerably more for street based LRT than SkyTrain so the cost differences become almost moot. SkyTrain was slightly higher but we're talking orders of magnitude in the realm of 2-5% which is close enough to then look at the other non-cost pros vs cons of the different modes and I believe SkyTrain's pros more than justify the very slightly higher cost.

So again not sure why you think LRT is capital wise so much cheaper, it really isn't.

Operating wise though, I'm not sure. LRT street level may very well be cheaper from an operational standpoint but it may also not be given our environment. I'll give you an example.

If you are to build a new LRT system that uses completely different technology and has drivers vs computers running things, you have to start accounting for staffing levels, compensation, benefits (public sector), pensions, etc. With SkyTrain they already have a SkyTrain central command so you would just expand that somewhat but the controls are in place, just like Canada Line and are known.

You also would have maintenance. One thing you don't have to account for with SkyTrain are physical accidents. For the most part SkyTrain maintenance is limited to operational maintenance, fixing wheels, seats, ensuring motors are working, etc. With ground based LRT you have to account for the trains getting into accidents with motor vehicles in addition to the standard operational maintenance.

So I don't think, without you doing a full CBA between the two specific to how it would look in Metro Vancouver, you can say with absolute certainty that operational LRT would be drastically cheaper than SkyTrain.

Again this is down Fraser Highway to Langley.

For the L line, the discussion to me has to first look at ridership and requirements for ridership. We have the numbers from the 96-B line for at least a full year and, when I took a look, it seemed to indicate to me that even at peak time it is handling the demand at this time with room to grow.

You then look at all the developments along the corridor and as I pointed out above, the next 20 years isn't seeing a huge amount of really dense transit-oriented developments even in Newton or Guildford. There are in Surrey Central but that isn't served by LRT to be honest as much as the outside areas are.

So I don't see the demand truely increasing drastically over the next at least 15-20 years along the L-Line to the point that you could justify a huge need. That means you can somewhat exclude SkyTrain since capital and logistics cost for such a short route is probably over the top. Be nice to have SkyTrain everywhere and everything be linked, but it just isn't justified to me at this time.

So then it comes down to 1) is current B-Line sufficient and if not, 2) what is the best middle ground between RRT (SkyTrain) and standard busses which the B-Line is (it isn't a true BRT it is just long buses that stop less frequently).

That's where we end up comparing BRT to LRT and I have yet to see a convincing argument that LRT is both cost and impact (ridership and customer service) vastly superior to going the BRT route at this stage.

One of the biggest deterents to taking public transit is mode transfers. This is well documented. For examaple, if someone can take a bus/train/whatever from point A to B they will pick whatever is the most convenient and quicker. When someone has to transfer between point A and B, for each transfer they need to make, that route/method of moving exponentially decreases in desirability.

LRT doesn't change that over current Buses or the B-Line. You still need to get on an LRT train and if you want to take SkyTrain, get off and get on SkyTrain. It is still a transfer so perception wise I don't think LRT has any perceptible difference over a proper BRT system if both have the same predictability which they would.

I just don't see the case for LRT unfortunately either on the L-line or down Fraser Highway. I don't think they can make a good or valid business case on either no matter how much they try.

Honestly it is all going to come down to Politics. The only reason the L-line would be built and be street level LRT is because of political will that's it. It will not have a good enough business case in my eyes no matter how many times people try to justify it WITHOUT FACTS which is what everyone seems to be doing. If they can justify it with facts and a true business case, then by all means.

Just saying words doesn't change the facts and honestly I challenge anyone who thinks LRT is superior and justified to actually write a full report with all the facts and present it. If the City of Surrey can't even publish a business case for LRT, with all due respect I don't think you can which means you're talking out of your rear.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I'm not sure if you posted your facts in another post/page but I would have to question where you're coming up with LRT having a lower capital cost. For all accounts we've seen out of Translink (and I'm talking strictly the Fraser Highway comparison as that has been done officially), LRT capital costs are very nearly the same as SkyTrain down the same corridor.

While vehicles are cheaper to purchase the amount of work required infrastructure wise is considerably more for street based LRT than SkyTrain so the cost differences become almost moot. SkyTrain was slightly higher but we're talking orders of magnitude in the realm of 2-5% which is close enough to then look at the other non-cost pros vs cons of the different modes and I believe SkyTrain's pros more than justify the very slightly higher cost.

So again not sure why you think LRT is capital wise so much cheaper, it really isn't.

Operating wise though, I'm not sure. LRT street level may very well be cheaper from an operational standpoint but it may also not be given our environment. I'll give you an example.

If you are to build a new LRT system that uses completely different technology and has drivers vs computers running things, you have to start accounting for staffing levels, compensation, benefits (public sector), pensions, etc. With SkyTrain they already have a SkyTrain central command so you would just expand that somewhat but the controls are in place, just like Canada Line and are known.

You also would have maintenance. One thing you don't have to account for with SkyTrain are physical accidents. For the most part SkyTrain maintenance is limited to operational maintenance, fixing wheels, seats, ensuring motors are working, etc. With ground based LRT you have to account for the trains getting into accidents with motor vehicles in addition to the standard operational maintenance.

So I don't think, without you doing a full CBA between the two specific to how it would look in Metro Vancouver, you can say with absolute certainty that operational LRT would be drastically cheaper than SkyTrain.

Again this is down Fraser Highway to Langley.

For the L line, the discussion to me has to first look at ridership and requirements for ridership. We have the numbers from the 96-B line for at least a full year and, when I took a look, it seemed to indicate to me that even at peak time it is handling the demand at this time with room to grow.

You then look at all the developments along the corridor and as I pointed out above, the next 20 years isn't seeing a huge amount of really dense transit-oriented developments even in Newton or Guildford. There are in Surrey Central but that isn't served by LRT to be honest as much as the outside areas are.

So I don't see the demand truely increasing drastically over the next at least 15-20 years along the L-Line to the point that you could justify a huge need. That means you can somewhat exclude SkyTrain since capital and logistics cost for such a short route is probably over the top. Be nice to have SkyTrain everywhere and everything be linked, but it just isn't justified to me at this time.

So then it comes down to 1) is current B-Line sufficient and if not, 2) what is the best middle ground between RRT (SkyTrain) and standard busses which the B-Line is (it isn't a true BRT it is just long buses that stop less frequently).

That's where we end up comparing BRT to LRT and I have yet to see a convincing argument that LRT is both cost and impact (ridership and customer service) vastly superior to going the BRT route at this stage.

One of the biggest deterents to taking public transit is mode transfers. This is well documented. For examaple, if someone can take a bus/train/whatever from point A to B they will pick whatever is the most convenient and quicker. When someone has to transfer between point A and B, for each transfer they need to make, that route/method of moving exponentially decreases in desirability.

LRT doesn't change that over current Buses or the B-Line. You still need to get on an LRT train and if you want to take SkyTrain, get off and get on SkyTrain. It is still a transfer so perception wise I don't think LRT has any perceptible difference over a proper BRT system if both have the same predictability which they would.

I just don't see the case for LRT unfortunately either on the L-line or down Fraser Highway. I don't think they can make a good or valid business case on either no matter how much they try.

Honestly it is all going to come down to Politics. The only reason the L-line would be built and be street level LRT is because of political will that's it. It will not have a good enough business case in my eyes no matter how many times people try to justify it WITHOUT FACTS which is what everyone seems to be doing. If they can justify it with facts and a true business case, then by all means.

Just saying words doesn't change the facts and honestly I challenge anyone who thinks LRT is superior and justified to actually write a full report with all the facts and present it. If the City of Surrey can't even publish a business case for LRT, with all due respect I don't think you can which means you're talking out of your rear.

Wish you and metro one were running things. This region would be so much better.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Do you have numbers on the life cycle costs for LRT and BRT? Make the assumption that BRT will be in place for 40 years (which it wouldn't be because it's a lot easier to replace with something that has more capacity, but let's make the assumption to make the comparisons easier).

Exactly my thoughts. In our situation, BRT seems to be placeholders/data gatherers for skytrain lines/extensions. Two B-lines, the 97 and 98, have been skytrainified.

[ilikeredheads]

Reminder that Translink's own study has found all of the LRT options to have poor cost effectiveness over its life cycle. LRT 4 (Newton to Guildford), in particular, also ranks at the bottom for providing least transportation benefits.
Appendix 3B
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...Evaluation.pdf

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Theres a big difference between a Chienese prototype vehicle and an actual build ready system.

BRT can easily duplicate LRT. This BRT line in France for example...

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.10967...7i13312!8i6656

And the driverless bus in China is not a prototype, that is real world technology that is rendering expensive LRT obsolete.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by logan5

BRT can easily duplicate LRT. This BRT line in France for example...

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.10967...7i13312!8i6656

And the driverless bus in China is not a prototype, that is real world technology that is rendering expensive LRT obsolete.

Show one application in the real world, I don't even believe a system is using it in service in China, it is very much a prototype just like that elevated bus concept (which also had a functioning mockup etc).

That BRT in France is great but yet again a system like that is going to be virtually equivalent in cost to an LRT as it requires large capital investment.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Just saying words doesn't change the facts and honestly I challenge anyone who thinks LRT is superior and justified to actually write a full report with all the facts and present it. If the City of Surrey can't even publish a business case for LRT, with all due respect I don't think you can which means you're talking out of your rear.

As I've said numerous times obviosuly Fraser Hwy. should be Skytrain, forcing a linear transfer is a major mistake and indeed its true, each transfer than needs to be made does seriously reduce peoples likelihood of riding (for obvious reasons).

In terms of a CBA looking at the one Translink has done I have always had numerous questions, you can look at numerous other cities which have implemented BRT vs. LRT and theres a trend that LRT draws more corridor investment (compare Winnipeg's BRT or York's BRT (a very nice one)) to Waterloo's ION (on the less nice side of LRT) and LRT still drew far more densification and development (I'm not sure if you were contesting this part of LRT).

In terms of operating costs there should be basically no question that LRT would cost less than a similar bus fleet, let me explain:

With LRT you will at worst have the same number of drivers as a bus fleet so salary's etc will be about the same. But on the operations and maintenance side LRV's are significantly lower maintenance than buses (buses deteriorate much faster and also are much more mechanically complex). In fact in a 40 year period you may not need to replace LRV's but, you would definetly need to replace buses. I would say buses and LRV's are probably just as likely to be in a crash but, again if we are at street level we should be comparing with buses not Skytrain .


Anyways, I appreciate your openess to discussion. My point has never been to argue LRT at street level is comparable to ATC Metro but, that it definetly has some benefits over BRT (which will have higher operating costs and similar capital costs) if you want to carry the same number of people AND have the same level of amenities. I think people who claim BRT has so much lower capital costs must be assuming we will have infrastructure that is the same as regular B-Lines, if you want something that (as LRT will) has separate lanes, large shelters with cvms and displays etc. then the capital cost is not that much lower.

And in terms of Skytrain I would love for my own use if you could show me the docs where it says a Skytrain on KGB-104 would only cost 2%-5% more (I personally don't think that is the case but I'm totally open to being proven incorrect). Even if constructing the guideway somehow came down to the same cost as segregating lanes and readjusting the road (as would be required with Skytrain to some maybe smaller degree) as has been mentioned before Skytrain Stations are MUCH more expensive than LRT stops for unsuprising reasons -they are bigger, contain escalators and more services, faregates, doorwars, more glass and much lrger structures etc.

On another note I am pretty sure Surrey plans on using Citadis Vehicles, as some sources I have have informed me.