Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The stations at King George are planned to be side by side. Knowing how this city does things though, they'll keep the existing faregates at the SkyTrain station and install new ones for the LRT; you'll have to get through the "tap out" crowd AND the "tap in" crowd.

Most systems create a fare paid zone so you don't need to tap in and out. If Translink is stupid that way, my sympathies.

Bah, Metro Van drivers blow their noses at your so-called "gates!"

So you are saying people from Metro Van will crash through the gates? You will notice in Calgary the have gates on both sides of the road on both sides of the track to prevent people from ducking around the gate (if you click on the picture in my previous post, it will bring you to Street View for a better look).

Granted, Houston drivers appears to be a special kind of stupid.

I am a great fan of the Darwin Awards.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by casper

When Skytrain was first being built we called it Advanced LRT.

Exactly. To say you don't like LRT is saying you don't like SkyTrain.

LRT just means light rail transit. Implementations may vary. Sometimes it is on the street, sharing the road with cars (typically when rolled out on existing street car lines). Sometimes it is at grade on a dedicated corridor (like what Surrey is proposing). Sometimes it is grade separated (either above or below ground, like SkyTrain). And sometimes is is a combination of two or more of these.

We are playing with semantics on this.

Agreed.

Some basic principles:
- running trains with automation is cheaper than having drivers in the train.

Most modern LRT systems support automation. With all the work in self driving cars, it won't be long before automation for at grade LRT systems will be available.

- segregated lines are better that sharing lines with traffic

True, but from what I have seen, that isn't what is being proposed. There are level crossings, but it still has a dedicated corridor.

- no one likes railways crossings on busy roads.

People don't like taxes either so it isn't a good argument for or against.

- Politian are in love with fare gates. To make fare gates work it best to have fare paid zones in stations, and dedicated secure stations instead of boarding trains for the sidewalk.

At grade LRT stations can have fare gates. Besides,when it opened, SkyTrain had an honour system for fare collection.

- Canadian are pragmatic people. They just want reliable transit, if they have to put LRT bumper stickers onto metro cars to keep the mayor happy and move the project forward, so be it.

A rather large generalization. Some do yes. Others want better cycling routes. Others still want better roads. And some just want the status quo.

I will follow up by saying that I am not a strong proponent of what Surrey is proposing, I am just against spreading false information.

[Metro-One]

Just out of interest I just noticed that Dallas plans to relocate 2 of their current at grade lines into a new subway through the downtown core.

I believe that Calgary also plans to tunnel their next LRT project under the city core.

It seems that some cities are starting to learn from the mistake of running LRT at grade through city cores.

[M00dy]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Most modern LRT systems support automation. With all the work in self driving cars, it won't be long before automation for at grade LRT systems will be available.

I think that's what held up opening of the last expansion of Edmonton LRT, was trust issues with at-grade automated systems. I believe the latest solution was they opened but are operating at lower speeds. Does anybody here know the background?

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by M00dy

I think that's what held up opening of the last expansion of Edmonton LRT, was trust issues with at-grade automated systems. I believe the latest solution was they opened but are operating at lower speeds. Does anybody here know the background?

I would have no problem with Surrey running LRT down 104th if:

(1) They were dedicated tracks while maintaining the current 4 lanes.

(2) The train always had the right of way and didn't have to stop for traffic like the Edmonton LRT. Otherwise it is just a bus on rails.

(3) The cost is way less than building Skytrain.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I would have no problem with Surrey running LRT down 104th if:

(1) They were dedicated tracks while maintaining the current 4 lanes.

I believe that is the plan.

(2) The train always had the right of way and didn't have to stop for traffic like the Edmonton LRT. Otherwise it is just a bus on rails.

I don't know much about the Edmonton system, but certainly the Calgary system gives the ROW to the train and it never has to stop for cars. It is also possible to give buses that level of priority, but not as easy as it is with trains.

(3) The cost is way less than building Skytrain.

That is the kicker. Construction costs are obviously way lower not having to either build elevated guideways or dig tunnels, but the cost to expropriate the land needed could eat up much if not all of the cost savings.

A hybrid approach could work well, grade separated where it is cost competitive and at grade (but still in a dedicated corridor) where it can save money. That is where I really question choosing Langley as the destination for the SkyTrain extension. Much of the Fraser Highway screams at grade LRT with 100 km/h trains. It might be better to extend SkyTrain to the Newton Exchange instead (just a thought).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't know much about the Edmonton system, but certainly the Calgary system gives the ROW to the train and it never has to stop for cars. It is also possible to give buses that level of priority, but not as easy as it is with trains.

It's just as easy if you build the same kind dedicated right of way for the bus as you would for an LRT.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It's just as easy if you build the same kind dedicated right of way for the bus as you would for an LRT.

Almost but not quite. Detecting a train is easy. Just electrically isolate the rails in a section of track and when a train is anywhere in that section of track, the wheels connect the rails together and will be detected. It is a proven technology and quite reliable.

For buses, the easiest way is to put a wire loop just under the pavement. The inductance will change when a vehicle (bus) is above it. The problem is those loops are relatively small and when the bus has passed it, you don't really know where it is (maybe it stopped, maybe it turned, maybe something caused a false detection). An added problem is if water gets under the pavement and then freezes, the wire can break and the detector stops working.

Optimally you want to detect the bus far enough down the road that the light will be green by the time it gets there, but the above limitations can cause issues so they usually put it closer to the intersection and have the bus wait for a green light. There are ways around this, but it is easier with trains.

Other technologies are available but they are more costly and have their own issues.

As a side note regarding vehicle detection for traffic lights, even bicycles can be detected if they are directly above the wire, so often markers will be painted on the road that you can align your bicycle over so that even they can trigger a green light.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you are saying people from Metro Van will crash through the gates? You will notice in Calgary the have gates on both sides of the road on both sides of the track to prevent people from ducking around the gate (if you click on the picture in my previous post, it will bring you to Street View for a better look).

Yet Surrey's cheaping out on everything else. Will they want to pay for a double barrier on every single crossing for the whole route? There's a lot of them.

And if so, that's a ban on left turns for 27 km on two of Surrey's primary arteries; I don't care about the traffic, but I do care about the buses stuck in said traffic.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am a great fan of the Darwin Awards.

We're creating prison bars on bridges to prevent suicides, and spaces to safely inject hardcore drugs to prevent overdoses - we'll probably be going with "nanny state" on this one.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Most modern LRT systems support automation. With all the work in self driving cars, it won't be long before automation for at grade LRT systems will be available.

The problem with at-grade, with or without a median, is that you have frequent track intrusions from people who don't see the train, or who try and beat it; someone's still gotta be there to brake for these idiots. Grade separation (or an existing ROW) means no sharing the street, no pedestrians, no cyclists, no drivers.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I believe (four lanes plus LRT) is the plan.

On 104th, it's two lanes plus LRT. As we speak, Surrey's trying to buy out several houses and split Hawthorne Park in half in order to make the individual 105th stretches into a parallel four-lane artery .

Originally Posted by roger1818

A hybrid approach could work well, grade separated where it is cost competitive and at grade (but still in a dedicated corridor) where it can save money. That is where I really question choosing Langley as the destination for the SkyTrain extension. Much of the Fraser Highway screams at grade LRT with 100 km/h trains. It might be better to extend SkyTrain to the Newton Exchange instead (just a thought).

Then you run into the same financial boondoggle as the Guildford-Newton line - ripping up the road and utilities, laying tracks, then rebuilding the road and utilities around the tracks ends up being nearly as expensive as the SkyTrain option - which only takes up one lane, mind you.

And that's capital costs (construction). We haven't even talked about operating costs yet this week (and I'm not sure why). Remember that LRT is incompatible with ALRT, which means non-interchangable vehicles and parts, and that we'll need to build and staff a new OMC (Ops and Maintenance Centre) - can't use the SkyTrain one, right? That, plus the new drivers/conductors, means that either LRT needs to provide a service that SkyTrain can't, or it needs to service a corridor where SkyTrain won't ever be needed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The problem with at-grade, with or without a median, is that you have frequent track intrusions from people who don't see the train, or who try and beat it; someone's still gotta be there to brake for these idiots. Grade separation (or an existing ROW) means no sharing the street, no pedestrians, no cyclists, no drivers.

If self driving cars can do it, why can't a self driving train? It is not as if the idiots are limited to rail corridors. In many ways it is simpler for a train as no steering is needed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If self driving cars can do it, why can't a self driving train? It is not as if the idiots are limited to rail corridors. In many ways it is simpler for a train as no steering is needed.

Assuming that there comes a time when collision avoidance is flawless, remember that cars and buses can brake on a dime; a train, not so much.

"Then why bother with a driver, if the idiots are going to be dead either way?" you may ask. Same reasons that self-driving buses will still need operators - stopping fare evaders, holding the doors for that one late passenger, hitting the manual override, etc.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Assuming that there comes a time when collision avoidance is flawless, remember that cars and buses can brake on a dime; a train, not so much.

So you think a driver has a faster reaction time than a computer? There will be times when a person might get a gut feeling that a computer can't detect, but then again there will be times when the person might not be paying close enough attention and miss something a computer would catch.

Same reasons that self-driving buses will still need operators - stopping fare evaders, holding the doors for that one late passenger, hitting the manual override, etc.

People said the same thing about SkyTrain over 30 years ago.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't know much about the Edmonton system, but certainly the Calgary system gives the ROW to the train and it never has to stop for cars. It is also possible to give buses that level of priority, but not as easy as it is with trains.

Not true, there are a few places the LRT has to wait for cars. The most obvious example is the main transit mall on 7th Ave where the lights are just on a timer, so if there is any delay on a train (people holding doors etc), it will miss the light and have to wait for the next one along with any trains behind it. Additionally, there are other sections where the train has to wait for the road as the roads are too busy to be interrupted by out of phase trains.

LRT isn't as bad as some have made out on here and definitely is massively better than buses, even BRT. But if you had the option of Skytrain vs LRT, Skytrain is the better option, no question.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not true, there are a few places the LRT has to wait for cars. The most obvious example is the main transit mall on 7th Ave where the lights are just on a timer, so if there is any delay on a train (people holding doors etc), it will miss the light and have to wait for the next one along with any trains behind it. Additionally, there are other sections where the train has to wait for the road as the roads are too busy to be interrupted by out of phase trains.

I stand corrected.

LRT isn't as bad as some have made out on here and definitely is massively better than buses, even BRT. But if you had the option of Skytrain vs LRT, Skytrain is the better option, no question.

Agreed. What is needed is a fair comparison of all options without jumping to conclusions. That is best done in the EA.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you think a driver has a faster reaction time than a computer? There will be times when a person might get a gut feeling that a computer can't detect, but then again there will be times when the person might not be paying close enough attention and miss something a computer would catch.

Again, self-driving tech still needs a whole lot of work. But don't take my word for it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

People said the same thing about SkyTrain over 30 years ago.

SkyTrain has faregates, 90 second headways and an operator at the station - that takes care of evaders, late passengers and emergency stops. By contrast, the LRT would behave like a streetcar or rapid bus, in which most of those problems are going to pop up.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. What is needed is a fair comparison of all options without jumping to conclusions. That is best done in the EA.

TransLink's already done that; SkyTrain + BRT was considered to be one of the best options. Surrey's politicians disagreed, and so here we are.

Obviously LRT works if done right. Problem is that Surrey's got the wrong corridors and the near-cheapest implementation.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed. What is needed is a fair comparison of all options without jumping to conclusions. That is best done in the EA.

TRANSLINK DID THAT ALREADY!!! are you serious? all this arguing to say "fair comparison without jumping to conclusions." THAT WAS DONE. AND IT HAS BEEN POSTER HERE. AND THE CHOICE WAS MADE. AND SURREY DIDN'T LIKE THE PROPER CHOICE.

look back in the thread and you'll see the report about all the option studied. holy crap.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Just out of interest I just noticed that Dallas plans to relocate 2 of their current at grade lines into a new subway through the downtown core.

I believe that Calgary also plans to tunnel their next LRT project under the city core.

It seems that some cities are starting to learn from the mistake of running LRT at grade through city cores.

when the first line was built on 7th ave to connect to the south leg, there was a bellmouth built in the tunnel under the CPR tracks to line up with a future 8th ave tunnel stretching from (the proposed new-now current) city hall to the mewata armoury

new (current) city hall was built with a lrt tunnel to align with this bellmouth and line up with a future 8th ave tunnel. the portion of this tunnel crossing under 3rd st was never built, so the bellmouth and city hall tunnel doesnt connect to anything. rumour has a city hall station was roughed in too when city hall was built. right now it is filled with filing cabinets for dead file storage. it was flooded a few years ago when the bow and elbow flooded e.calgary downtown. google [calgary "city hall" lrt tunnel] for pics
and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7YBZvhVwgk

the city hall tunnel also has provisions to eventually connect to the ne line. presumably the new library has these tunnel provisions too, but again nothing built under 3rd st. this 8th ave tunnel was debated during the planning of the nw line and the w line, but was never built because of cost. now the ctrain planners are realizing that having all 4 legs using 7th ave is creating traffic problems because there are so many trains on 7th ave, and now longer trains are being used.

since the flooding, the bellmouth has been bricked up.

the next (incompatible) lrt - the green line - will tunnel from 16th ave/ center st , swing west under sunnyside, under prince's island, south under 2 st. and the cpr mainline, east under 12 ave to the stampede park bus garage. then swing back north to the cpr tracks and run on the surface past inglewood and further s.e. along the cpr and cnr r.o.w. this line has become so expensive (over $4 billion and counting), the portion north of 16 ave on center st to beddington has been 'deferred'

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I believe that is the plan.



I don't know much about the Edmonton system, but certainly the Calgary system gives the ROW to the train and it never has to stop for cars. It is also possible to give buses that level of priority, but not as easy as it is with trains.



That is the kicker. Construction costs are obviously way lower not having to either build elevated guideways or dig tunnels, but the cost to expropriate the land needed could eat up much if not all of the cost savings.

A hybrid approach could work well, grade separated where it is cost competitive and at grade (but still in a dedicated corridor) where it can save money. That is where I really question choosing Langley as the destination for the SkyTrain extension. Much of the Fraser Highway screams at grade LRT with 100 km/h trains. It might be better to extend SkyTrain to the Newton Exchange instead (just a thought).

Elevated skytain tracks are dirt cheap and no more expensive then the foundations and street work required for LRT + significantly greater land acquisitions. The proposed LRT is already more per km then skytrain, and thats with obvious costs cuts already.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Then you run into the same financial boondoggle as the Guildford-Newton line - ripping up the road and utilities, laying tracks, then rebuilding the road and utilities around the tracks ends up being nearly as expensive as the SkyTrain option - which only takes up one lane, mind you.

Right now skytrain is cheaper. Per km the LRT is already more expensive then skytrain and I expect costs to continue to rise and scope to be cut. Skytrain is simple and cheap, you need less land and less street work and utility work. You just through up columns and then run the assembly machine over top of them to screw together the guide way that is cast off site. The most expensive thing is the stations if they are custom built.

[Trainguy]

If phase one of Hep's streetcar gets built along 104th, I doubt phase two along Fraser Hwy will happen. The Government of the day won't likely agree to anything other than an extension of Skytrain from KG. Anyone will say keeping the existing technology is a no brainer but then again, we are talking about Hepner. Hopes she gets booted next year.

[logicbomb]

Save Hawthrone Park movement is gaining steam. Tremendous opposition to the new 105th A Ave collector because many do not see any purpose in this new road.

They're right. This serves absolutely no purpose to Central Surrey as it's proximity is so close to 104th and actually does little to actually connect neighborhoods and cuts through an entire park.

Now, a 106th Ave arterial connecting Central Surrey to Guildford should definitely explored- especially as the road would follow existing crumbling roads and have a minimal environmental impact within the park.