Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[nname]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

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.

I think we can. Instead of building one line after another, we build half of each for phase 1 (ie. VCC-VGH, King George-Newton), and then extend them when funding is available (VGH-Arbutus, Surrey Central-Guildford; Arbutus-UBC, Surrey Central-Fleetwood/Langley). Although both extensions would have to be SkyTrain this way, or it wouldn't make sense to operate a 3-5km stub.

[nname]

Originally Posted by 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.

And that ignores operation cost? AFAIK, the operating subsidy is currently about twice as much as debt service (for capital). So if you add in the operating cost, it would be completely different story. For SoF to have better service, they would need to stop having areas or routes that cost four times as much to run than the fare paid...

If everything being equal, SoF paid far less in fare than people in Vancouver:

Average fare (2007):
1 zone: $1.22
2 zones: $1.73
3 zones: $2.75

Vancouver Ridership (2007 weekday):
1 zone: 272,600 ($333K)
2 zones: 71,400 ($124K)
3 zones: 22,500 ($53K)
Total: 366,500 ($509K)

Surrey, Delta, Langley, White Rock Ridership (2007 weekday):
1 zone: 31,500 ($38K)
2 zones: 12,800 ($22K)
3 zones: 15,500 ($36K)
Total: 59,800 ($97K)

Fare revenue ratio (2007 weekday):
Vancouver: 55.6%
South of Fraser: 10.6%

Service hour ratio (2007 weekday):
Vancouver: 45.1%
South of Fraser: 14.6%

Service km ratio (2007 weekday):
Vancouver: 37.5%
South of Fraser: 18.0%

Long story short.. Vancouver paid more than 5 times as much fare as SoF but does not nearly got 5 times as much service. Base on that, would you agree that Vancouver should get better transit infrastructure and service than SoF? Not to mention that the property tax is also higher too...

Sorce: RTM Phase B, 2007 Annual Report, with my own calculation from raw data.

[usog]

Originally Posted by nname

And that ignores operation cost? AFAIK, the operating subsidy is currently about twice as much as debt service (for capital). So if you add in the operating cost, it would be completely different story. For SoF to have better service, they would need to stop having areas or routes that cost four times as much to run than the fare paid...

If everything being equal, SoF paid far less in fare than people in Vancouver:
-snip-

Well for one, I have ask whether Translink's mandate is to bring quality service to more people, or merely to continue to improve service for those lucky enough to have it? If that question gets answered then we have our solution for priority. Still, people here seem to focus on the reality/numbers and not the politics

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by nname

I think we can. Instead of building one line after another, we build half of each for phase 1 (ie. VCC-VGH, King George-Newton), and then extend them when funding is available (VGH-Arbutus, Surrey Central-Guildford; Arbutus-UBC, Surrey Central-Fleetwood/Langley). Although both extensions would have to be SkyTrain this way, or it wouldn't make sense to operate a 3-5km stub.

The problem with that plan is it would add significantly costs to stop construction and remove all the equipment only to truck it all back a few years later to finish; not to mention it could be disruptive.

[nname]

I don't have the current number, but since 2007, every service expansion (when they actually have the money to expand) have about half of the expansion hours allocated to SoF (they made this statement loud and clear, and I actually went and verify it with their GTFS data ). So I guess the the answer would be the first one.

[nname]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

The problem with that plan is it would add significantly costs to stop construction and remove all the equipment only to truck it all back a few years later to finish; not to mention it could be disruptive.

But still much better than all the political fight and associated delay of which area should get the line first. In fact, if they did complete Evergreen Line 10 years ago, the line would got more stations and is much cheaper....

[Pinion]

If you move to the outer edge of a city, you shouldn't expect great transit. That's why it's cheaper to live there. People all over the lower mainland need/want to go to Broadway/Kits/UBC. To suggest another Surrey line is more important is pure homerism.

[racc]

Anyway, regardless of whether one is built before the other or both UBC Line and Surrey RT happen at the same time, it is going to take money. It is time people SoF step up and fight increased funding for transit whether it be congestion pricing, tolls, vehicle levies, higher fuel taxes, etc.

The reason why we are way behind in transit throughout the region is that 12 years ago politicians SoF lobbied against the vehicle levy and the provincial government of the day refused to support it. If the levy would have been in place, the Evergreen Line would have been completed years ago, the UBC Line (at least to Arbutus) would likely have been completed and so would some expansion SoF or at least it would be under construction now.

As well, road expansion needs to stop. It is taking money away from transit and encouraging sprawling development which is impossible to serve cost effectively with transit. Tolls are falling way short of paying for the Golden Ears Bridge. It is costing TransLink $33 million a year. This would pay for a lot of buses or several km of rapid transit. New roads also take ridership away from transit thus reducing ridership revenue further reducing funding for transit improvements.

Don't give the development creates traffic excuse. The City of Vancouver is growing too but road space is being reallocated for other uses. The City is even thinking of tearing down the Viaducts. Not just in Vancouver, either, New West reallocated lanes of traffic on Columbia Street.

[racc]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

The problem with that plan is it would add significantly costs to stop construction and remove all the equipment only to truck it all back a few years later to finish; not to mention it could be disruptive.

Not really much of a problem to stage the construction. It is done with rapid transit lines all the time. It might even have to be staged anyway. Different equipment is required for each of the lines. For UBC Line, one or more Tunnel Boring Machines is required. If the soil conditions drastically change, they may need to switch machines at some point. They might also need to maintain it. For the Surrey RT if it is SkyTrain, it would be built starting at King George. Some of the line could be finished and in use before the end of the line is. This happened with the Millennium and Expo Lines.

Same could be done for LRT or BRT.

[Metro-One]

If it is to be phased, the UBC extension should only be cut into 2 phases. Here, we could simultaneously build the UBC SKYTRAIN extension to Arbutus, while constructing the first leg of a SoF RT project. The, the next stage would be completing the UBC line to UBC and adding another section the the SoF network. Then everyone would be happy! (though, knowing our area everyone would fins a reason to be pissed off).

[officedweller]

Just a reminder that at the time that the Surrey Extension opened, there were big plans for Gateway Station - the Gateway Tower and teh three adjacent Intrawest condo towers were the first projects - but then recession hit.
Likewise, King George Development had planned a big TOD at King George Station, but it got hit with market forces too.
The Balmoral condo (where the Surrey 6 murders were) was the first condo tower in that project.
Geographically, it may still be a bit too far from downtown Vancouver to build condos for Vancouver-bound commuters (so the condo market there will rely on commuters who work in other Metro Vancouver areas closer to Surrey).

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

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????

ask then why SoF politicians, leaded by mayor Watts are all pointing at Translink inefficency?...isn't them want to see Translink be ran as a business relying as low as possible on taxpayer money?


Bottom line

So far, it appears that one will have very hard time to make a convincing business case for rapid transit in Surrey...if it happens it will be not on economic rational - but on political one...

That can be Fine, as long as people are well aware of it because that means it will have a cost for the taxpayer $ - and it will be not the best use of the $ taxpayer). What is not fine is when people distort the reality to justify their case, and confounding their perception with fact. Glad to see people hear correcting that...

When perceptions are wrong, we shouldn't proceed according what they suggest, but we should work at correct them:
Good to see people on this forum working at it

2) The fact that Surrey is growing quickly IS the reason, the sole justification why its justified that it needs large transit expenditures.

Nope, because it needs to grow in the right way. At this time, Surrey build Tynehead, Campbell height,... away of any transit route...and then whine for more Transit when its skytrain stations sit in the Middle of parking lots...

That is simply an utterly irresponsible use of the tax payer Money...

If you compare the same urbanized landmass (the one of 2006), you will see basically a very different picture: Surrey doesn't grow, Surrey sprawls :

That doesn't make a good case for any form of efficient transit either.

[Echowinds]

Surrey has 20 years to build density around Scott Road, Gateway, Surrey Central and King George. Instead, the fastest growing areas ended up being Newton, South Surrey, and Cloverdale, which are nowhere near the Skytrain stations. Whalley grew by a paltry 10,000 over the last 10 years, which is rather low considering the growth of Surrey as a whole, as the city gained 100,000 during the last decade. There's really no excuse to use the recession considering the comparisons with other suburbs, as under that assumption Richmond/Burnaby/Coquitlam should have suffered greatly from canceled proposals as well. However, we do see that there were still many high-rise projects coming out of these suburbs, all of which have less population increase in both absolute and percentile terms than Surrey.

It's not absolutely necessary for rapid transit to exist to foster high density growth if some planning is in place. For instance, almost 6000 of the 8500 gained in population in Richmond are concentrated within City Centre. Surrey's growth lies in sprawl, not intensification, despite the fact that they already have 4 RRT stations for 18 years. Although there are plans to drastically increase Surrey's city centre density, none of it has materialized yet. If anything, I agree with others' proposal to put one or two B-lines down King George/Fraser to build ridership and pave the way for a future RRT line down these corridors.

http://www.surrey.ca/for-business/1418.aspx
http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/asse..._Facts6248.pdf

In contrast, the Broadway Corridor is an area with significant amount of employment and residential density. There has been many developments in the corridor at the moment, and the 99B is frequently under significant capacity pressure. It simply makes business sense to build RRT there first when money materialize, and arguably it should have been built before Canada Line/Millennium Line/Evergreen Line. It should have greater ridership compared to the other 3 lines as well especially if it is built to connect UBC. As it is, politics/economics have got in the way several times already. As mentioned, people from all over Metro Vancouver (including Surrey) heads to the Broadway corridor, while conversely there are markedly fewer people heading to Surrey Central. The Broadway corridor draws many people from all over the North Shore, Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, and increasingly the Tri-Cities. A Surrey line will almost solely be utilized by people in Surrey and Langley/White Rock. A Broadway Line, once built, will save Translink money by cutting down on operating cost and most likely generate a small profit from the line itself, due to the high density of the area along with the cutting of numerous bus routes which obviously have a high operating cost. This will generate momentum in getting new transit lines, as a successful RRT line will increase both economical and political support for translink. While I also believe that a Surrey line will certainly be well utilized, I doubt it will generate nearly as much ridership as the Broadway line, and thus the opportunity for detractors to label RRT as a useless boondoggle again.

That is not accounting for the significant road/bridge work that is taking place SoF, which will clearly benefit people SoF more even if it is benefiting the region as a whole. A SoF commuter can not only benefit from improved logistics of the economy, but also actively use new roadways and bridges frequently. Someone in say North Vancouver may benefit from said improved economics, but rarely will they be able to use the Golden Ears bridge because there's no reason to.

Of course, it would be great if both lines can be funded at the same time, but that's not going to happen. However, I believe a Broadway line is more beneficial to the whole metro and makes more sense to build first.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by nname

Expo Line was paid by BC Transit. TransLink paid $0. They don't own it, they didn't pay for it. The line is still on BC Transit's book as of today.
Millennium Line was paid by the provincial government, TransLink paid $0. TransLink doesn't own the line, MoT does.
Canada Line was paid partially by senior government, TransLink's contribution is $334 millions
Evergreen Line TransLink's contribution is $400 millions.

Add them all up, its $733 millions.

Same tax payer lawl oh wait I just used the same argument you used against me earlier. But wait, why do the Expo and Millenium line expenses and revenues show up on Translink's financial statements? (Btw if you want the answer take a look at their 2011 capital budget... but I'll save you the trouble... it's because Translink = BC Transit)

Like I said, your opinion and my opinion is clear and quite frankly there is no point debating you. I can throw numbers left right and center and make this an endless pointless debate. The truth is the numbers are quite meaningless my ultimate argument is that people SoF just want to feel like we don't have to hold the region at gun point to get any increased service which we still do.

Is the tide shifting? Sure it is. But it has to shift quite a bit before people will perceive it as fair.

[GMasterAres]

And again I'm seeing arguments for stopping road expansion but increasing transit. That makes absolutely no sense I it's like some of you are new to this entire debate. I'll explain in a few sentances rather than a giant page the reasoning though but in a nut shell, when your transit relies more than 50% or 60% revenue on funding from road levies, gas taxes, and tolls to fund transit and at the same time is hell bent on getting people out of cars, it ultimately shoots itself in the foot.

Watch this... money from Cars -> Transit. Less people Drive = More demand for Transit. Less people drive = less money for transit. Less money for transit = no ability to expand transit any more.

This is why Translink has been pushing and pushing to get property taxes implemented because they know that all these fuel, road, parking, bridge levies are a 1 way street to bankruptcy. So ultimately the entire region, Province, and Translink itself needs to rethink how it funds transit.

I still am of the opinion transit should fund transit, and roads should fund roads. Where they overlap aka busses, then we can see some cost sharing, but where they don't aka trains, LRT, SkyTrain, etc., those systems should be fully responsible for themselves.

Is that hard to do? Absolutely, I only think Hong Kong and a few other cities world wide have a profitable transit system that can look after itself. Unfortunately public transit on average is a loss business. So while you'll never get away from it you certainly need to reduce the reliance on car based taxes from the 60% revenues outside of transit fairs.

[GMasterAres]

Expo & Millenium Line Expenses = $94,984,000
Canada Line Expenses = $100,555,000
Bus Expenses = $614,000,000

Total Transit Revenues = $421,015,000

Seeing as it all goes into 1 pot, stating that Canada Line earns a Profit would mean either or Expo/Millenium Lines see HUGE losses or busses also see huge losses.

Unfortunately I have yet to find a Translink financial report that actually states what the revenues are from Sky Train different from busses. They lump it all together.

At the end of the day though:

Transit fairs paid = $421 million
Transit expenses = $809 million

Something wrong with that picture. A broadway line even making 500% profit would still not bring Translink into the black if you just focus on transit paying for transit. So I doubt profitability of a skytrain line will determin which line would go first. It would just slow the bleed ever so slightly. Not to mention as has been said above, a large bulk of people on a new Broadway line would be U-pass holders so you have even less revenue.

Unfortunately I don't know the answer. *shrug*

[twoNeurons]

If 2012 or 2013 becomes another 1991 ("Pop!"), it will drastically reduce the number of new condo starts as buyers dry up and prices drop.

This means we may have to make do with the current densities we have. I'm looking forward to seeing the B-Line in Surrey. I don't understand why the B-Line along Fraser Hwy doesn't have funding to me, though.

[GMasterAres]

I'd guess road infrastructure. Fraser Highway is still being widened and the worst stretch hasn't even been touched (between Whalley Boulevard and 148th). You can't run a B-Line down Fraser Highway right now and at this rate wouldn't be able to for another 2 years.

That's my best guess as to why.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Expo & Millenium Line Expenses = $94,984,000
Canada Line Expenses = $100,555,000
Bus Expenses = $614,000,000

Total Transit Revenues = $421,015,000

Seeing as it all goes into 1 pot, stating that Canada Line earns a Profit would mean either or Expo/Millenium Lines see HUGE losses or busses also see huge losses.

Unfortunately I have yet to find a Translink financial report that actually states what the revenues are from Sky Train different from busses. They lump it all together.

At the end of the day though:

Transit fairs paid = $421 million
Transit expenses = $809 million

Something wrong with that picture. A broadway line even making 500% profit would still not bring Translink into the black if you just focus on transit paying for transit. So I doubt profitability of a skytrain line will determin which line would go first. It would just slow the bleed ever so slightly. Not to mention as has been said above, a large bulk of people on a new Broadway line would be U-pass holders so you have even less revenue.

Unfortunately I don't know the answer. *shrug*

If I'm not mistaken, the Canada Line profits won't show there. It's a P3. I don't know the details, but I'd assume that profits would go to the private party until the end of the contract.

The Expo Line, as I understand it, turns a profit. Not sure about the M-Line. It looks like, from those numbers, buses are the biggest drain when it comes to expenses. This makes sense. There's less room for optimization, better efficiency, etc. Passengers to operator ratios are much higher.

HOWEVER, rail projects have a large capital cost.

In a nutshell, rail pays off in the future... IF there's a case for it being well used.

I know, I know... I'm wearing my captain obvious hat again.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Expo & Millenium Line Expenses = $94,984,000
Canada Line Expenses = $100,555,000
Bus Expenses = $614,000,000

Total Transit Revenues = $421,015,000

Seeing as it all goes into 1 pot, stating that Canada Line earns a Profit would mean either or Expo/Millenium Lines see HUGE losses or busses also see huge losses.

Busses see huge losses.

Originally Posted by jhausner

I have yet to find a Translink financial report that actually states what the revenues are from Sky Train different from busses. They lump it all together.

This would be determined by percentage of ridership. The cost in terms of the number of people taking Skytrain compared to its expense is lower than that of busses.

Originally Posted by jhausner

At the end of the day though:

Transit fairs paid = $421 million
Transit expenses = $809 million

Something wrong with that picture. A broadway line even making 500% profit would still not bring Translink into the black if you just focus on transit paying for transit. So I doubt profitability of a skytrain line will determin which line would go first. It would just slow the bleed ever so slightly. Not to mention as has been said above, a large bulk of people on a new Broadway line would be U-pass holders so you have even less revenue.

Unfortunately I don't know the answer. *shrug*

And a Surrey line bringing in much less revenue is going to help that financial picture? U-Pass in terms of its sheer numbers adds more revenue than a line with lower ridership. In addition, most people riding the Broadway line are not going all the way to UBC and therefore are not U-Pass holders.

Everything that I am stating has been pointed out already.

The business case supports Broadway over Surrey. You can make other arguments based upon emotions, a debatable unfairness, or political viability but they do not seem to be supported by the business case.

It also possible that a higher percentage of people in Surrey don't even want to use transit. If I still believe in the vision of suburban single-family homes, aren't I also more likely to want to drive my car instead? This is not a dig at the Surrey lifestyle, but rather a speculation on differing perspectives.