Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I don't I'm still at a toss up newton/south surrey route with skytrain and LRT on fraser. I really want to see new population/work growth numbers of south surrey/newton verus langley city/fleetwood. Cause while the long hall would be nice to have skytrain is it really worth it when it could serve more the other way? Plus white rock is more of a whole lower mainland destination they langley city cente is. So it would draw more people coming in both way all the time.

The thing to consider though is how many people in South Surrey commute to Surrey. I still think that most people there either work locally (mostly in healthcare it seems) or commute right into Vancouver. Is it worth it to build a more expensive line to White Rock when it would be faster to actually take the bus on the bus lanes on the highway to the Canada Line rather than a single seat ride on Skytrain? That's why I think LRT to South Surrey is more appropriate, because it would be better scaled (price for capacity) for the number of people who would use it to get into Surrey.

Lets compare. It's about equaly length to build Skytrain from King George Station to either 64 ave (King George) or 168 st (on Fraser). Both would have large catchment areas around the stations and many feeder bus routes into the station. Expanding beyond that it gets quite different. On Fraser, once you pass Highway 15 you hit Cloverdale, Clayton, Langley and Langley city, and you bring transit closer to those in Aldergrove and even Abbotsford. On King George, you build a long way and the only community you get closer to is South Surrey. It doesn't get closer to anyone else. On top of that, destinations are split in SS; many will opt for bus travel to the Canada Line. While Skytrain to Langley is a captive audience: the one line will take them everywhere they want to go, and be the fastest possible way (as fast as driving). There are also expansion possibilities from Langley, whereas South Surrey is a dead end.

Going to Langley would hit a slightly larger population directly, have a larger nearby population, and have a captive audience. If you could only build one, Langley would be a much better return on investment.

[nname]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Compare that to King George where most of the road has extra wide shoulders or space wasted with expansive greenery. I bet you could build LRT on King George for almost $27million/km, but wouldn't even come close to that on Fraser Highway.

Translink's own estimate put the L line LRT at 80M/km, and Fraser Highway LRT at 65M/km. This is compared to 150M/km and 120M/km for SkyTrain.

The cost for LRT may seems to be alot, but it does seems to be on par with some other new projects in Canada that I compared in the other thread

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Guildford-CC-Newton would be a fairly short system, but would have a lot of ridership, which would be good for getting a new LRT system off the ground. It also has potential for expanding it throughout Surrey: Like from Newton to Scottsdale and/or South Surrey, or from Guildford to Walnut Grove. It would also be pretty easy to expand. Once you have the infrastructure in place, expanding from Newton to 64 ave would be as simple as widening the road and putting tracks in the median; no need for mega project status and huge contracts involving thousands of workers. Once the trains are bought, the city could basically lay track whenever they improve roads (or at least leave space for tracks).

Using the cost of 80M/km, it may not seems to be so easy...

[racc]

Heavy, motorized transportation does not belong at street level. Lets elevate it or put it underground and give the streets back to people.

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/re...-way.html?_r=1

For centuries, pedestrians had undifferentiated dominion over both the sidewalks and the roadbed — sidewalks were not pedestrian cattle pens, but off-limits zones for vehicles. “The street” meant the entire open area, from building line to building line.

This changed in the 1880s with the advent of electric and cable streetcars, with their much greater weights and speeds than horse-drawn vehicles, not to mention their guillotine-like wheels. It is a comment on how we viewed our streets that, by design, passengers were meant to board streetcars in the middle of the roadway.

But the installation of trolley tracks also created a kill zone. In 1894 The New York Times reported that a speeding streetcar on Prospect Avenue in Brooklyn had killed 10-year-old Theodore Cox, “a bright little boy” who was “ground under the wheels.” The police helped the motorman escape the crowd, which was crying “Lynch him!” This was not to be a bloodless war.

[LeftCoaster]

^ Why don't you just go join a amish community? I feel like you would be much happier there.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by racc

Heavy, motorized transportation does not belong at street level. Lets elevate it or put it underground and give the streets back to people.

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/re...-way.html?_r=1

this is why I love skytrain, and also why I want to keep the viaducts and make the surface streets under them, along with East hastings and Water Street, primarily for pedestrian activity

Wit that being said, while Skytrain is the obvious choice for the Evergreen Line and the M-Line extension (no doubt about that), LRT I do feel could be the better choice for Surrey and Langley. that being said, i would hope that they would build an LRT system that primarily has its own ROW akin to the C-Train in Calgary, and not one that primarily runs along the middle of the streets akin to Phoenix.

[crazyjoeda]

Heavy, motorized transportation does not belong at street level. Lets elevate it or put it underground and give the streets back to people.

In some situations at grade LRT is appropriate. In Surrey and Langley there is room to build LRT with-out interfering with existing pedestrians or existing traffic. LRT along the Broadway corridor would be inappropriate because it would negatively effect traffic and pedestrians.

[logan5]

TransLink, which had tentatively proposed building a six-kilometre SkyTrain from City Centre to Guildford, has estimated the cost of light rail at $27 million per kilometre versus $127 million per kilometre for the Evergreen Line and $233 million for the UBC/Broadway line.

Here's a quote from the Sun article. Why do these articles keep quoting Translinks figure of 27m/km?

[nname]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The thing to consider though is how many people in South Surrey commute to Surrey. I still think that most people there either work locally (mostly in healthcare it seems) or commute right into Vancouver. Is it worth it to build a more expensive line to White Rock when it would be faster to actually take the bus on the bus lanes on the highway to the Canada Line rather than a single seat ride on Skytrain? That's why I think LRT to South Surrey is more appropriate, because it would be better scaled (price for capacity) for the number of people who would use it to get into Surrey.

Lets compare. It's about equaly length to build Skytrain from King George Station to either 64 ave (King George) or 168 st (on Fraser). Both would have large catchment areas around the stations and many feeder bus routes into the station. Expanding beyond that it gets quite different. On Fraser, once you pass Highway 15 you hit Cloverdale, Clayton, Langley and Langley city, and you bring transit closer to those in Aldergrove and even Abbotsford. On King George, you build a long way and the only community you get closer to is South Surrey. It doesn't get closer to anyone else. On top of that, destinations are split in SS; many will opt for bus travel to the Canada Line. While Skytrain to Langley is a captive audience: the one line will take them everywhere they want to go, and be the fastest possible way (as fast as driving). There are also expansion possibilities from Langley, whereas South Surrey is a dead end.

Going to Langley would hit a slightly larger population directly, have a larger nearby population, and have a captive audience. If you could only build one, Langley would be a much better return on investment.

But the real question is the segment between Newton and Surrey Central. Translink's own estimate state that it would have 7000 riders/km by 2021 and 12000 riders/km by 2041, whereas the LRT option generates 2600 and 5300 riders/km respectively. This kind if ridership definitely support SkyTrain. One benefit of extending SkyTrain to Newton is that it reduce one transfer for regional trips (And for the record, the main destination north of Fraser for the people in Surrey is actually Burnaby/New West). With the trunk route established, we can now focus on developing east-west corridor between 104th and 72th (which can eventually be candidates for LRT routes) and establish a high frequency grid system like Vancouver instead of funneling everything to Surrey Central like what we have right now. It would be interesting to see the ridership pattern on the new B-Line next year - how many people gets off at Surrey Central to get on SkyTrain, how many have Surrey Central as their final destination, and how many ride it all the way to Guildford. From what I've observed, more than half of the people on the #321 are coming to/from SkyTrain. LRT wouldn't be the best choice if more than half of the people ends up transferring at a single station.

What I have envisioned is a two routes skytrain system - one from King George to Newton, and the other would branch off the Expo Line with a Y junction between Gateway and Surrey Central, then it follows 104th to Guildford, 152th to Fleetwood, and Fraser to Langley. Trains from Waterfront would alternate between Langley and Newton, while a third line can run from Fleetwood/Guildford to Newton via Surrey Central. Base on the cost estimate on the Surrey rapid transit study, this entire plan would cost 3.3 billions, or 550 millions more than your proposal (If you include an LRT on 152th to match both systems, it would only cost 300 millions more). It can be done in 3 phases:

1. King George to Newton, 900 millions (100 millions more than the L route, but twice as much riders)
2. SC/Gateway junction to Fleetwood (168th St.) via Guildford with an OMC at the end of line (north of the golf club?), 1.2 billions (only 200 millions more expensive than LRT all the way to Langley, and 750 millions less expensive than SkyTrain from King George to Langley)
3. Fleetwood to Langley, 1.2 billions

Beside the Fleetwood to Langley segment, the other phases matches the three-line LRT routes radiating out of Surrey Central, but the SkyTrain line would bring more riders, more convenience, faster travel time, better regional integration, and lower operating cost. So I think it would be a good trade off.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

Here's a quote from the Sun article. Why do these articles keep quoting Translinks figure of 27m/km?

27M/km is the cost for BRT.

See page 27 of this document

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I don't I'm still at a toss up newton/south surrey route with skytrain and LRT on fraser. I really want to see new population/work growth numbers of south surrey/newton verus langley city/fleetwood. Cause while the long hall would be nice to have skytrain is it really worth it when it could serve more the other way? Plus white rock is more of a whole lower mainland destination they langley city cente is. So it would draw more people coming in both way all the time.

Why the toss up? The basic LRT routing is common sense. Where it gets complex is where you want the spurs to go.

As for Skytrain to White Rock vs. Langley... While White Rock is more of a destination for travellers from the valley, it doesn't hold much prospect of residential, commercial, and industrial growth beyond it's current retiree/bedroom community status. Langley on the other hand has incredibly potential for growth, in the scale and density of residential developments, and expansion of it's commercial and industrial properties. It has potential to double or even triple in size. Quite worthy of being the new terminus of the Expo line within the next 15 years.

It is not in the best interest of White Rock and not in the best interest of the lower mainland to end a trunk line of the transit system in such a low development area.

At this time and the foreseeable future, White Rock would be best served by a B-line from Newton/Scott Rd. Station, to White Rock Centre, then west through Delta into Tsawassen, and up into Richmond (and vice-versa). In time, if it grows, possibly expand the B-line route into a full-fledge LRT that links up with the line that travels down King George. It will never need more then that.


I know this is a kissing ass to a blue moon prospect, but if Evergreen line comes in under budget, any chance some of the funds could be directed to a small Expo Line extension to Fleetwood?

[theQ]

There are different ways to look at Transit...

The "best" solution for commuters may not be the "best" solution for development.

A skytrain from Langley and from Newton might be the best solution for commuters (faster, no need to transfer in downtown surrey etc.). However, a LRT will be a bit slower, but will help the development of Central City.

A commuter might not like the idea of having to get off in Downtown Surrey and transfer to the Skytrain - but any business (& development) Downtown Surrey will definitely benefit from thousands of people getting off the LRT every day and transfering to skytrain... They might decide to buy some groceries, get a coffee, do some shopping, catch a movie, eat dinner etc. in Downtown. Whereas a skytrain won't benefit Downtown at all... People would just look down from their car and watch Downtown Surrey zip by them.

Diane Watts keeps on talking about the development that LRT will bring, my theory is that she is being very deliberate about promoting LRT. They used to say "every road leads to Rome", I think she wants every transit line in the "South of Fraser" to lead to Downtown Surrey and help build our new downtown! If most residents who take the LRT from Langley, White Rock, Delta (hopefully eventually) have to come downtown, it should bring more development $$$ downtown in a way that Skytrain wouldn't.

I live in Central City myself, there is a lot of development going on here... But I'm hopeful that the LRT will bring even more development - the more the better...

I think that those that are simply comparing the commuter benefits of skytrain vs. LRT aren't looking at the whole picture.

[Zassk]

1) Much talk in this thread about how much growth potential Langley has. But Langley seems like the last place we should encourage growth, when Surrey itself needs to grow. I think that TOD-led growth in Langley would come at the expense of TOD-led growth in Surrey itself, and this is not a good thing. We should be encouraging population to consolidate itself in the region as it grows, and that means there should be as little growth as possible east of Surrey or Coquitlam. Encouraging TOD on the very edge of Metro Vancouver (i.e. Langley) seems like something we would want to happen 100 years from now, if ever.

2) As for talk of connecting White Rock to Richmond, I think this too is misguided. The Surrey end of Expo Line is much, much closer to White Rock than the Canada Line. In order to build Surrey CC into a regional downtown, it needs to be connected by transit to the "suburbs of Surrey" - of which White Rock/South Surrey is an ideal candidate. If the SkyBridge capacity maxes out one day, only then should we consider routing more transit traffic the longer way through Richmond.

[nname]

Originally Posted by theQ

There are different ways to look at Transit...

The "best" solution for commuters may not be the "best" solution for development.

A skytrain from Langley and from Newton might be the best solution for commuters (faster, no need to transfer in downtown surrey etc.). However, a LRT will be a bit slower, but will help the development of Central City.

A commuter might not like the idea of having to get off in Downtown Surrey and transfer to the Skytrain - but any business (& development) Downtown Surrey will definitely benefit from thousands of people getting off the LRT every day and transfering to skytrain... They might decide to buy some groceries, get a coffee, do some shopping, catch a movie, eat dinner etc. in Downtown. Whereas a skytrain won't benefit Downtown at all... People would just look down from their car and watch Downtown Surrey zip by them.

Diane Watts keeps on talking about the development that LRT will bring, my theory is that she is being very deliberate about promoting LRT. They used to say "every road leads to Rome", I think she wants every transit line in the "South of Fraser" to lead to Downtown Surrey and help build our new downtown! If most residents who take the LRT from Langley, White Rock, Delta (hopefully eventually) have to come downtown, it should bring more development $$$ downtown in a way that Skytrain wouldn't.

I live in Central City myself, there is a lot of development going on here... But I'm hopeful that the LRT will bring even more development - the more the better...

I think that those that are simply comparing the commuter benefits of skytrain vs. LRT aren't looking at the whole picture.

But that come at the expense of the commuter, whose main objective is to get to their destination quick and comfortable. There's so much they can tolerate, and if you force them to add extra 20 minutes to their commute and make transit unattractive enough, many would just go back to their car and bypass the Surrey Central area all together.

Just look at Metrotown and all those people coming into the mall from SkyTrain during the PM peak. Are they all transferring at the station? Or they are just doing a quick stopover and continue their journey later on? Even if its just an intermediate stop on a long SkyTrain route, the area had developed so much since the last 1980s.

Now comparing this to Bridgeport - how many people are going into the casino just because they stopped there? I think the only place most people visited in that area would probably just the bus loop. Also, observe the people connecting to SeaBus at Waterfront or Lonsdale - most would just go directly from the bus/SkyTrain to the terminal even when they clearly tell you the next SeaBus won't be coming for another 14 minutes!

I believe that if people want to do something, they'll just do a stopover; if they just want to go home, they'll just walk directly to the other platform or bus stop even if you force them to stop there. Its not like SkyTrain or LRT going to have a headway of 15 or 30min.. but if it does, I bet most would just stand on the platform for 15 minutes! So I think bringing more people enroute to the area would be more beneficial to forcing less people to stop and transfer.

[logan5]

At some point we've got to break the Skytrain addiction. You quote LRT 4 number at 81 million/km, but other LRT options are 40-50 million per km. Zwie like strategy. If Surrey is a city of its own, Skytrain doesn't matter. Maybe it's more convenient to connect to the existing system, but at what cost? Besides the capital cost, an elevated line running right through the center of your city destroys its urban potential. I believe the Skytrain decision in Surrey is synonymous with the freeway decision in Vancouver back in the sixties.

At this point Skytrain is hitting the law of diminishing returns.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by nname

But that come at the expense of the commuter, whose main objective is to get to their destination quick and comfortable. There's so much they can tolerate, and if you force them to add extra 20 minutes to their commute and make transit unattractive enough, many would just go back to their car and bypass the Surrey Central area all together.

Just look at Metrotown and all those people coming into the mall from SkyTrain during the PM peak. Are they all transferring at the station? Or they are just doing a quick stopover and continue their journey later on? Even if its just an intermediate stop on a long SkyTrain route, the area had developed so much since the last 1980s.

Now comparing this to Bridgeport - how many people are going into the casino just because they stopped there? I think the only place most people visited in that area would probably just the bus loop. Also, observe the people connecting to SeaBus at Waterfront or Lonsdale - most would just go directly from the bus/SkyTrain to the terminal even when they clearly tell you the next SeaBus won't be coming for another 14 minutes!

I believe that if people want to do something, they'll just do a stopover; if they just want to go home, they'll just walk directly to the other platform or bus stop even if you force them to stop there. Its not like SkyTrain or LRT going to have a headway of 15 or 30min.. but if it does, I bet most would just stand on the platform for 15 minutes! So I think bringing more people enroute to the area would be more beneficial to forcing less people to stop and transfer.

The problem with most of those transfer points is they were developed before TOD was really considered. How much stuff is actually at Bridgeport? You have to travel a ways from the bus loop to find anything worth buying at Metrotown (but I HAVE stopped at the A&W there to pick up dinner during my transfer many times). What's close to Central City? Scott Road? Lougheed? NOTHING.

However, there are shops at Waterfront, and the Starbucks and Subway there seem to do alright business, and it would be entirely transit related customers. That McDonalds in Lonsdale always seems to be busy, and doesn't have a drive through. And have you ever seen how busy it sometimes gets in the Fresh Slice at Commercial station? You can't tell me that that is just "local traffic" and not people on a layover.

And I think it works in the opposite direction. I think the shorter the headways the more likely the person will make a quick stop to get something. The last thing you want to do is be waiting at Starbucks as that clock ticks down for the Seabus then just miss it by seconds as you spill your coffee on you running, then have to wait 15 minutes. But if you are hoping off the Canada Line heading down to the Expo Line, where if you miss a train its a 3 minute wait at most, then why not stop, it won't cost you any more time than the time it takes to wait in line.

[memememe76]

After departing from the 320 bus and before I get on the Skytrain at Central Station, I get a coffee from the nice Italian and or from the nice Korean couple. And when I leave the Skytrain and before I hop on the 320, I will get stuff for dinner from Safeway (usually one of their french loaves) or if I want take out, that Chinese food take out place.

And if I had to wait 14 minutes for the seabus, I would get a coffee over at bean around the world. Are you suggesting that no one would go in the McD's or Starbucks that are right beside the entrance?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by memememe76

After departing from the 320 bus and before I get on the Skytrain at Central Station, I get a coffee from the nice Italian and or from the nice Korean couple. And when I leave the Skytrain and before I hop on the 320, I will get stuff for dinner from Safeway (usually one of their french loaves) or if I want take out, that Chinese food take out place.

And if I had to wait 14 minutes for the seabus, I would get a coffee over at bean around the world. Are you suggesting that no one would go in the McD's or Starbucks that are right beside the entrance?

Not everyone is an impulse shopper, and the impulse shoppers and benefiting businesses will be the only ones served by a needless transfer. Most people, if they want a coffee, will have already bought one before the start their transit journey afterwards, and don't usually need one in the middle. However, if you are so compelled to have a fresh one every half hour (I'm one of these people), I'd get off the damned train, buy one, then hop back on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of Surrey Centre being the downtown of the South of Fraser Region, but it wont discourage growth of the area by continuing Skytrain to Langley. If anything, it'll encourage more Langley commuters to go to Surrey because it would be far quicker. I've lived in Langley, I still have family there, and I know first hand how much of a pain in the ass it is getting back and fourth between there and Surrey on a daily basis. I also know that many people in Langley want Skytrain so they can go to both Surrey and Vancouver. It's not like the line is going to suck all the potential Langley-Surrey commuters away into Vancouver. And most of the commuters who do end up wanting to cross the Fraser probably don't want to deal with a useless transfer.

LRT is perfect for commuters within there own communities, as well as feeding them efficiently to transfer points along the Skytrain line. But when you implement it for cross-region journeys, you will encounter the point of diminishing returns far sooner than if you were to use Skytrain as the backbone of the system.

Further, what is wrong with encouraging growth in Langley? There is plenty of open space that is neither ALR or farmland that could be easily densified with the proper application of transit. There is also plenty of space for much needed industrial jobs. The city can't function on film, tourists, and retirees alone.

[racc]

Originally Posted by logan5

Besides the capital cost, an elevated line running right through the center of your city destroys its urban potential. I believe the Skytrain decision in Surrey is synonymous with the freeway decision in Vancouver back in the sixties.

Your other points are valid but this one is just pure rhetoric. Richmond has proven that an elevated guideway can be integrated into the urban fabric quite nicely. Number 3 Road has probably the best pedestrian space in the region. LRT actually has a worse impact in someways by limiting access across the line and requiring wider surface right-of-ways.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

At some point we've got to break the Skytrain addiction. You quote LRT 4 number at 81 million/km, but other LRT options are 40-50 million per km. Zwie like strategy. If Surrey is a city of its own, Skytrain doesn't matter. Maybe it's more convenient to connect to the existing system, but at what cost? Besides the capital cost, an elevated line running right through the center of your city destroys its urban potential. I believe the Skytrain decision in Surrey is synonymous with the freeway decision in Vancouver back in the sixties.

At this point Skytrain is hitting the law of diminishing returns.

LRT 1 to 3 options have BRT component.

Well, if you compare all the components of alternatives, you can get a cost of something like this:

BRT	SC-GU		 100M	 4km	 25M/km
BRT	SC-NT		 150M	 6km	 25M/km
BRT	NT-WR		 300M	13km	 23M/km
BRT	SC-LG		 400M	16km	 25M/km
LRT	GU-SC-NT	 800M	10km	 80M/km
LRT	SC-LG		1000M	16km	 63M/km
RRT	SC-NT		 900M	 6km	150M/km
RRT	SC-LG		1950M	16km	122M/km

Adding up those numbers by segments will exactly equal the cost given by each of the alternative.

[nname]

Just thinking.. wouldn't that be one of the same argument they use for Broadway LRT? Slow down your trip so you can see and visit the shops along the way...