Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[SFUVancouver]

Well, wasn't Surrey saying all along that it would fund this problematic initiative itself?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by officedweller

You image isn't showing - I gather it was this:

A few projects are missing from that list.

Several smaller cities in Ontario will also be building LRT.

Also, I believe Edmonton has an LRT project planned as well.

Also, we may be happy to see the Surrey LRT line off the list here, but where is the SKYTRAIN (well all know it must be!) extension to Langley?

That is also planned to be constructed (or at least well underway) within a decade.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

A few projects are missing from that list.

Several smaller cities in Ontario will also be building LRT.

Also, I believe Edmonton has an LRT project planned as well.

Also, we may be happy to see the Surrey LRT line off the list here, but where is the SKYTRAIN (well all know it must be!) extension to Langley?

That is also planned to be constructed (or at least well underway) within a decade.

I definitely see it as something that can be taken in a few different ways... but what is clear is that the Surrey LRT project is not considered "ambitious" enough to be listed as one of the projects.

In a way it really is a huge blow to the credibility of the entire Surrey-needs-rapid-transit movement, regardless of where you stand on the type of transit project that is built. This is a big, growing area; just about everyone agrees that something needs to be done down here. Even the GVBOT lists Surrey Rapid Transit above the Broadway extension as the top regional priority. LRT proponents have triumphed how LRT will "transform the entire city" and how it is supposedly a big deal down here. It's funny how Surrey's Mayor Office guy was trying to downplay it by suggesting that there was "no room in the document" to add it on the list, but I think there is really no excuse.

When it all comes together, there is still no business case (and the initial analysis did not produce a positive one), there's currently still no certainty on the capital cost (which has already increased once), and there are many, many people looking at this and aware of all the reasons to just say "no". If they can't come forward with a clear plan and a good project, or demonstrate that it is even that well-supported, there is little reason to award that sort of acknowledgement and credit.

and by the way, Edmonton didn't exactly impress everyone with its last major LRT project, so...

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I definitely see it as something that can be taken in a few different ways... but what is clear is that the Surrey LRT project is not considered "ambitious" enough to be listed as one of the projects.

In a way it really is a huge blow to the credibility of the entire Surrey-needs-rapid-transit movement, regardless of where you stand on the type of transit project that is built. This is a big, growing area; just about everyone agrees that something needs to be done down here. Even the GVBOT lists Surrey Rapid Transit above the Broadway extension as the top regional priority. LRT proponents have triumphed how LRT will "transform the entire city" and how it is supposedly a big deal down here. It's funny how Surrey's Mayor Office guy was trying to downplay it by suggesting that there was "no room in the document" to add it on the list, but I think there is really no excuse.

Everything we've seen in the past 5 years has been a huge blow to the "credibility" of the project. So what? Credibility means squat nowadays. What has emerged recently is that no one is willing to hold these political entities responsible for their blatant misuse of funds or stupid decision-making. Our society is so passive and our governments have all the freedom to be as corrupt as they want without any repercussions.

The City of Surrey will somehow build the stupid L line. I think the residents will determine the fate of what goes down Fraser Highway. Hopefully these very same residents see how awful congestion is during construction and post-completion so they intervene.

[a very long weekend]

can i ask: why on earth would surrey want to invest 2.5 billion dollars LRT without separating it completely from the traffic with flyovers at the very least. the blocks are so incredibly long that all it couldn't add more than a few hundred million to the project, but it would make insurance cheaper, travel times shorter, accidents impossible and then you could automate it. what's the deal? considered and rejected, i assume, but why?

[Metro-One]

It would be nice if the focus could now slowly shift over to extending the Expo Line to Langley before building Surrey's L-Line

[Bobert]

Surrey LRT is most likely funded:

Linda Hepner
"With today's federal budget, we are closer than ever to putting shovels in the ground for Surrey LRT and the Broadway subway, so we can move more people around our growing region on transit"

link

The feds are probably funding a ton of other projects elsewhere that aren't listed. I'd imagine those 'ambitious' projects are just highlighting the big city portions.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

can i ask: why on earth would surrey want to invest 2.5 billion dollars LRT without separating it completely from the traffic with flyovers at the very least. the blocks are so incredibly long that all it couldn't add more than a few hundred million to the project, but it would make insurance cheaper, travel times shorter, accidents impossible and then you could automate it. what's the deal? considered and rejected, i assume, but why?

Because Surrey's MO has been 'hey look it's cheaper to lay tracks on the ground vs elevating them like that expensive Skytrain - we can build sooo much more rail this way!' They ignore those other pesky details.

[Reecemartin]

I don't think Expo is on here because that's the next major regional level expansion. Surrey LRT is just less significant in a regional sense. Expo to Langley is definetly likely but it's a ways off an I'm imagining it will be quite expensive considering the length of the line. I'm imagining Broadway + Surrey L will have a cost that combined will be somewhat close to Skytrain to Langley which is actually going to be alot more expensive than I think most of us think it will be.

Of course the alignment is relatively straightforward since we don't need to build any tunnels, however there will need to be utility relocation as well as rebuilding of roads along the entire 19km which is fairly expensive. I see alot of cost also lying in other elements such as the stations which will likely be built to the new age spec of the Evergreen Line with 2 escalators per platform minimum. Also we have to factor in some major fleet expansion and new maintenance space etc considering this is going to significantly increase the length of the Expo Line.

In terms of Surrey L and this regions past blunders (40m platforms). It's easy to be cynical but, in the end it's still hard to complain too much, within the next 10-15 years Vancouver is going to be leagues ahead of any other city in North America in terms of modern transit, especially for the city's size. While I know alot of people certainly aren't huge fans of Surrey LRT, as a supplement to the Skytrain which is looking like it will be expanded alot it's not such a big deal. I mean on the continuum of transit I think we should be pretty happy about where we are and where we are going. We are looking more and more like an East Asian or European city in terms of transit.

[retro_orange]

Although it will be the skytrain cars going out to Langley I would Imagine they would have it running at grade alongside the highway right of way for the wide open areas. Skytrain is mostly elevated now because it's mostly in dense urban areas where elevating it is easier than making space for it on the ground. Take away the extra engineering needed to have it elevated and it would save money.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Although it will be the skytrain cars going out to Langley I would Imagine they would have it running at grade alongside the highway right of way for the wide open areas. Skytrain is mostly elevated now because it's mostly in dense urban areas where elevating it is easier than making space for it on the ground. Take away the extra engineering needed to have it elevated and it would save money.

Lower to the ground yes but certain areas are on flood plains so it probably should be built too low to the ground to account for more frequent flooding in the future.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Lower to the ground yes but certain areas are on flood plains so it probably should be built too low to the ground to account for more frequent flooding in the future.

but you could do that on an embankment rather than on pylons

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Of course the alignment is relatively straightforward since we don't need to build any tunnels, however there will need to be utility relocation as well as rebuilding of roads along the entire 19km which is fairly expensive. I see alot of cost also lying in other elements such as the stations which will likely be built to the new age spec of the Evergreen Line with 2 escalators per platform minimum. Also we have to factor in some major fleet expansion and new maintenance space etc considering this is going to significantly increase the length of the Expo Line.

I think you're right, though not all of the alignment would have to be along Fraser Highway. Some of it could be on parallel side streets or back lanes similar to the Expo Line south of Broadway-Commercial. I could see this happening near the terminus in Langley. I'm not sure this would save much money though.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

It's easy to be cynical but, in the end it's still hard to complain too much, within the next 10-15 years Vancouver is going to be leagues ahead of any other city in North America in terms of modern transit, especially for the city's size. While I know alot of people certainly aren't huge fans of Surrey LRT, as a supplement to the Skytrain which is looking like it will be expanded alot it's not such a big deal. I mean on the continuum of transit I think we should be pretty happy about where we are and where we are going. We are looking more and more like an East Asian or European city in terms of transit.

this is highly exaggerated. vancouver's rapid transit system isn't on track to be "leagues ahead" of those of every other north american city, and won't ever hold a candle to those of any chinese or japanese city of any size.

even just in canada, montreal blows vancouver away on the rapid transit front, and over the next 10 years, montreal is expanding its system much more than is vancouver.

as for the rest of north america, aside from NYC and chicago, both in leagues that vancouver will never touch, you have cities like DC, philadelphia, boston and san francisco with extensive rapid transit systems that vancouver would be lucky to match. i see vancouver getting eventually to around portland-level coverage but with the superior automated system.

vancouver stacks up well against a lot of north american cities, it looks like you're from toronto, so your view of vancouver's rapid transit system is shaded by the national humiliation that is toronto system, but let's keep some perspective.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

this is highly exaggerated. ....

The key qualifier is ..."[especially] for the city's size."
(I would delete the "especially".

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

this is highly exaggerated. vancouver's rapid transit system isn't on track to be "leagues ahead" of those of every other north american city, and won't ever hold a candle to those of any chinese or japanese city of any size.

even just in canada, montreal blows vancouver away on the rapid transit front, and over the next 10 years, montreal is expanding its system much more than is vancouver.

Can't underscore this enough. Before moving to Montréal I thought SkyTrain's frequency was awesome. Then I moved to Montréal, where massively long trains come every 3-6 minutes from 7am-10pm. Even to the suburbs like Angrignon.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The key qualifier is ..."[especially] for the city's size."
(I would delete the "especially".

Makes the statement more true, but it'll be some time before Vancouver pulls ahead (let alone "leagues ahead") of the most transit-oriented North American cities of a similar size:

Portland rail map:


SF rail map (not including T-Line subway extension currently under construction):


The great advantage that Vancouver has is that all rail is fully grade separated and automated. Man, that's a huge one, I wish it were the case here in SF. But even adding what is essentially a third metro line in the city of Vancouver in the Broadway extension doesn't make Vancouver an "East Asian or European city in terms of transit" it gets a major corridor covered and a great spine for the bus system.

Again, for people like Reece who seem only to know the two line Toronto system and Vancouver, check out Montreal.

Montreal rail map (including REM that it looks like the feds just funded, and the Anjou Blue Line extension that Quebec will likely announce next week):


Anyway, the Surrey LRT thing is still bothering me, why not do it entirely grade separated with flyovers? Was a study done comparing the costs? Was it much greater?

[Reecemartin]

I've been to Montreal, the system is indeed good and it's built for more traffic than Skytrain however I wouldn't say that it's actually higher quality (trains don't even have ACand it can't be built in in the future because of the tunnel design). At the rate Vancouvers system is looking to be growing we should still be quite far ahead of Montreal per person in terms of km of rapid transit.

For all the criticism of Surreys LRT I'm somewhat surprised Portland comes up, I like the system and it certainly is quite extensive, but the streetcar service isn't particularly good and Max can be frustratingly slow where it isn't really segregated well in the core.

Chicago's system appears pretty good, but Im pretty sure much like NYC it has seen alot of issues with under investment over the years so I do not think the quality of services is quite like Skytrain.

I think what I was trying to and failed to allude to is that their are a massive number of NA cities we are beating and most US cities have under invested for a long time (clearly changing in LA in particular). Considering the quality of service Skytrain provides and how extensive the network will be once we have a line to Langley and Broadway I still think we have one of the best systems in North America easily (of course it's not going to be as large as LA NYC or 2020's Toronto's systems though)

[Orcair]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I've been to Montreal, the system is indeed good and it's built for more traffic than Skytrain however I wouldn't say that it's actually higher quality (trains don't even have ACand it can't be built in in the future because of the tunnel design). At the rate Vancouvers system is looking to be growing we should still be quite far ahead of Montreal per person in terms of km of rapid transit.

The new AZUR trains are super slick and modern. Yes, they are custom for Montréal but they are shiny and catch up with the Mark III's in most options - electronic maps, lots of space for wheelchairs, etc. Yes no AC but they don't operate above ground so different circumstances. The bloody MR-63s have ventilation fans that are too powerful, to be honest.

Link URL: https://www.mtlblog.com/uploads/2907...244456bd5f.jpg

[Metro-One]

Sorry, but it is very east to argue that Vancouver has a far superior system than Portland. Yes, Portland may have more rail KMs than Van, but the system is substandard to Vancouver's in nearly every other way. One only has to look at the ridership per KM to get an idea.

Also San Fran and area are about 3 times the size of Metro-Van, so not an equal comparison at all. Even Montreal is nearly double the size of Metro-Van, and I will give you that Montreal does have a decent system for its size with a fantastic expansion planned. Most of the other cities mentioned are also far larger than Metro Vancouver and should have far larger systems, but the fact that it is hinted at that they are still comparable is pretty laughable for those larger cities.

So again, for the population, Vancouver does have a pretty good system (does any other system in North America servicing a metro under 3 million use fully grade separated lines or are they all surface / partially surface grade LRTs?) and these expansions will solidify the system pretty well. Also, automated is pretty cool