Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

For all the people complaining about speed while that is important as someone who pretty frequently rides the buses on King George I'd say capacity is definetly a bigger issue. The bus is almost always packed by the time we reach Surrey central and LRT could definitely alleviate that congestion. The actual speed of the bus isn't actually that bad and running vehicles in a separated laneway in the centre of the street and signal priority will clearly help improve speed between stations as well.

A) The problem isn't so much slowness as it is cost-effectiveness. We've had this argument many times before, but it's worth repeating that the current plan basically means "build a slightly larger B-Line on rails for the same $2+ billion price tag as a (way faster) SkyTrain."

B) Capacity can also be solved with more frequent buses - if the 96 ran every 3-4 minutes like the 99, instead of every 7-8, you'd have an extra bus to take half the load off the first one.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

A) The problem isn't so much slowness as it is cost-effectiveness. We've had this argument many times before, but it's worth repeating that the current plan basically means "build a slightly larger B-Line on rails for the same $2+ billion price tag as a (way faster) SkyTrain."

B) Capacity can also be solved with more frequent buses - if the 96 ran every 3-4 minutes like the 99, instead of every 7-8, you'd have an extra bus to take half the load off the first one.

Again no matter what has been said there is 0 chance that a Skytrain extension is going to end up costing the same, you will still need significant depot expansions and guideways are more expensive than on street right of ways, I did a lot of research into that since the last time this has been discussed.

Running buses at twice the frequency requires twice the drivers so that also has a significant cost increase.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If it is not fully incorporated with the campus card system with machines located at stations then that will be another fail for this project.

Aso the main stations should be fare gate controlled (rural train lines do this in Japan, main stations / hubs have fare gates, smaller local stations don’t)

No but what I am asking is do we expect their to be readers at stops akin to Portlands System, or readers on trains akin to Torontos.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again no matter what has been said there is 0 chance that a Skytrain extension is going to end up costing the same, you will still need significant depot expansions and guideways are more expensive than on street right of ways, I did a lot of research into that since the last time this has been discussed.

Running buses at twice the frequency requires twice the drivers so that also has a significant cost increase.

It also provides twice the service and doesn't inhibit actual good transit from being built in the future. That's light rail's biggest flaw - it all but eliminates the possibility from the gold-standard of transit (grade-separated metro) being built, all for having a prettier service that does nothing a bus can't.

[Colin4567]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It also provides twice the service and doesn't inhibit actual good transit from being built in the future. That's light rail's biggest flaw - it all but eliminates the possibility from the gold-standard of transit (grade-separated metro) being built, all for having a prettier service that does nothing a bus can't.

Glass City again posts something extremely intelligent that I agree with - long term lock-in of a mediocre at best technology is a serious concern with the Surrey LRT project.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Again no matter what has been said there is 0 chance that a Skytrain extension is going to end up costing the same, you will still need significant depot expansions and guideways are more expensive than on street right of ways, I did a lot of research into that since the last time this has been discussed.

Running buses at twice the frequency requires twice the drivers so that also has a significant cost increase.

Obviously SkyTrain on both routes would be more expensive, but that's not on the table. Again, the RRT1 option (SkyTrain to Langley, BRT for Newton-Guildford) provides a better cost-benefit ratio than LRT1; both options cost $2.2 billion, but on the N-G corridor, there's really nothing that LRT can do better than BRT... and of course, SkyTrain to Langley works better.

Note that Surrey's LRT is supposed to run every 5 minutes, meaning more drivers and more vehicles regardless. More drivers = $; More drivers + LRT = $$$$$.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

No but what I am asking is do we expect their to be readers at stops akin to Portlands System, or readers on trains akin to Torontos.

The Compass system was implemented to prevent fare evasion, so unless there's some engineering problem I don't know about, I'm guessing it'll be farezones and gates just like the SkyTrain.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Running buses at twice the frequency requires twice the drivers so that also has a significant cost increase.

The technology already exists for bus trains. You would have 1 human operated vehicle, while driverless vehicles follow closely behind the human operated lead vehicle. Far easier technology to implement than fully autonomous vehicles, especially when they are operating in traffic separated bus lanes.

With all that money spent on 27 km's of LRT, you could build 100 km's of high quality BRT that would be just as fast as LRT and have just as much capacity. Potentially, you could have direct routes from Whiterock into downtown Vancouver, and from Carvolth into downtown Vancouver, on top meeting the local needs of Surrey.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by logan5

The technology already exists for bus trains. You would have 1 human operated vehicle, while driverless vehicles follow closely behind the human operated lead vehicle. Far easier technology to implement than fully autonomous vehicles, especially when they are operating in traffic separated bus lanes.

With all that money spent on 27 km's of LRT, you could build 100 km's of high quality BRT that would be just as fast as LRT and have just as much capacity. Potentially, you could have direct routes from Whiterock into downtown Vancouver, and from Carvolth into downtown Vancouver, on top meeting the local needs of Surrey.

Yet again BRT will require more drivers so the operating cost is going to still be very high and most of the capital costs are still there in terms of widening the road etc, BRT is definetly closer to LRT than LRT to SkyTrain in terms of initial capital and operating costs, however there are some clear benefits with LRT such as the fact that it's higher capacity, zero emissions, and has (no matter what some would have you believe) more permanence. Of course you can get almost all the same benefits as LRT with a very specialized BRT setup but if you want to set up and autonomous triarticulated trolley BEST system then you've really just ended up spending the same amount anyways.

In terms of making full grade separated metro out of the question, it already is. Even our busiest corridors use SkyTrain which while definetly a great use of a technology that has pretty much completely failed to gain traction ICTS that is. As most people here know most true Metro Systems are adding significant automation to their systems meaning the only really unique feature of SkyTrain technology is its steep grade climbing ability and painfully small rolling stock. I would seriously hope for any future NEW lines we look to a system with a wider loading gauge and platforms that aren't Canada Line length however that's not going to happen in Surrey First. Even a SkyTrain Line covering all the routes they have proposed LRTs for would be pushing 5+ billion.

And it's not like building LRT actually shuts your options to upgrading to something that has equivalent capacity to SkyTrain (not a full metro) in the future just by adding grade separations where needed as with something like the Eglinton LRT which will have the same capacity as our SkyTrain Lines.

Something I really worry about after seeing Toronto is what will happen if there's too big of a push for fully grade separated systems all over the place akin to Rob Ford era Toronto. Instead of building several LRTs Ford pushed the massively underperforming Sheppard Subway which despite being on a corridor that's easily much denser than Surrey has abysmal ridership. Only now is the whole Southern Ontario region opened up to LRTs and finally cities like Mississauga which are bigger than even Vancouver will finally have some form of higher order transit rather than constantly debating the merits of LRT and Grade Separated Systems and ending up with either nothing built or something which isn't extensive enough to attract large scale ridership.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

As most people here know most true Metro Systems are adding significant automation to their systems meaning the only really unique feature of SkyTrain technology is its steep grade climbing ability and painfully small rolling stock. I would seriously hope for any future NEW lines we look to a system with a wider loading gauge and platforms that aren't Canada Line length...

The big advantage of the smaller rolling stock is that it weighs a lot less and this means less capital cost for bridges and elevated sections. Or, alternatively, the savings in capital cost can be put toward greater coverage (longer lines) or additional rolling stock (more frequent service).

I imagine this benefit is a lot less important for at-grade or tunneled sections, though.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Yet again BRT will require more drivers so the operating cost is going to still be very high and most of the capital costs are still there in terms of widening the road etc, BRT is definetly closer to LRT than LRT to SkyTrain in terms of initial capital and operating costs...

That's a pretty sweeping statement. It ultimately depends on the project; BRT can cost $50M/km, but since Calgary's West LRT cost $190M/km and Toronto's Eglinton cost $280M/km, and the Broadway extension's about $300-400M/km, I could easily argue the opposite - that BRT costs are farther from LRT and RRT.

Again, it's not like LRT is driverless. Or that it won't involve ripping up the road, widening, moving utilities, laying track, then repaving. With BRT, it's ripping, widening and repaving - or if you reduce lanes instead, just repaving.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

however there are some clear benefits with LRT such as the fact that it's higher capacity, zero emissions, and has (no matter what some would have you believe) more permanence. Of course you can get almost all the same benefits as LRT with a very specialized BRT setup but if you want to set up and autonomous triarticulated trolley BEST system then you've really just ended up spending the same amount anyways.

Also again, the expected ridership is 4,100 pphpd when fully upgraded... the 99 B-Line gets 5,000. So you don't need to spent the same amount - you just need to run the 96 every 3-4 minutes, allow three-door boarding, possibly create dedicated lanes or bus-only lights, and there's your LRT! It even arrives a minute or two faster!

I'll cede the permanence, but the entire point of the BRT is that it ISN'T supposed to be permanent - it's a placeholder until the SkyTrain comes along. Trying to replace an LRT that wasn't even supposed to be replaced is obviously going to be a lot harder.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I would seriously hope for any future NEW lines we look to a system with a wider loading gauge and platforms that aren't Canada Line length however that's not going to happen in Surrey First. Even a SkyTrain Line covering all the routes they have proposed LRTs for would be pushing 5+ billion.

Funny you should mention that - for the same money as this oversized streetcar, Surrey could be getting B-Lines to White Rock, Coquitlam and Chilliwack.

As for the Canada Line platforms, that's less the downside of ALRT and more the downside of low bids and rushing to finish before the Olympics. Oh well, live and learn.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

And it's not like building LRT actually shuts your options to upgrading to something that has equivalent capacity to SkyTrain (not a full metro) in the future just by adding grade separations where needed as with something like the Eglinton LRT which will have the same capacity as our SkyTrain Lines.

If Hepner and co. announced that they'd grade-separate the problematic spots tomorrow - rather than have somebody else clean up their mess long after they retire - I'm pretty sure the entire Vancouver forum would calm down almost instantaneously.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Instead of building several LRTs Ford pushed the massively underperforming Sheppard Subway which despite being on a corridor that's easily much denser than Surrey has abysmal ridership. Only now is the whole Southern Ontario region opened up to LRTs and finally cities like Mississauga which are bigger than even Vancouver will finally have some form of higher order transit rather than constantly debating the merits of LRT and Grade Separated Systems and ending up with either nothing built or something which isn't extensive enough to attract large scale ridership.

A) Sheppard's problem is that it's only got five stations and one anchor point (Sheppard-Yonge), runs perpendicular to most people's commutes... and it's halfway to the suburbs. Extending it along the street or connecting it with rapid transit on the other end would make it at least a transfer line, rather than just randomly branching off Yonge-University.

The SNG line, on the other hand, is anchored by Newton and Guildford, parallel to people's commutes, and is supposed to be south-of-Fraser's downtown. No problem with ridership there.

B) Small towns like Hamilton and Waterloo have low density, low traffic and high roadspace - LRT works just fine for them. By contrast, big towns have high density, high traffic and low roadspace, so trains and traffic can't coexist as easily.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Yet again BRT will require more drivers so the operating cost is going to still be very high and most of the capital costs are still there in terms of widening the road etc, BRT is definetly closer to LRT than LRT to SkyTrain in terms of initial capital and operating costs, however there are some clear benefits with LRT such as the fact that it's higher capacity, zero emissions, and has (no matter what some would have you believe) more permanence. Of course you can get almost all the same benefits as LRT with a very specialized BRT setup but if you want to set up and autonomous triarticulated trolley BEST system then you've really just ended up spending the same amount anyways.

If you do the math from the Surrey Rapid Transit Study from a few years ago, BRT was 25% of the capital cost of LRT, and travel times were almost exactly the same (LRT was very slightly faster) - 2 different technologies on the exact same route.

Once again, the technology already exists for BRT to match the capacity of LRT, using the same number of drivers. If it hasn't been perfected yet, it soon will be, let alone the expectation of completely driverless technology. At that point buses make way more sense.

[swimmer_spe]

Maybe Translink should let Surrey build the LRT. Then when it comes time to extend the Skytrain to Langley, build no additional stops in Surrey.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Yet again BRT will require more drivers so the operating cost is going to still be very high and most of the capital costs are still there in terms of widening the road etc, BRT is definetly closer to LRT than LRT to SkyTrain in terms of initial capital and operating costs, however there are some clear benefits with LRT such as the fact that it's higher capacity, zero emissions, and has (no matter what some would have you believe) more permanence. Of course you can get almost all the same benefits as LRT with a very specialized BRT setup but if you want to set up and autonomous triarticulated trolley BEST system then you've really just ended up spending the same amount anyways.

In terms of making full grade separated metro out of the question, it already is. Even our busiest corridors use SkyTrain which while definetly a great use of a technology that has pretty much completely failed to gain traction ICTS that is. As most people here know most true Metro Systems are adding significant automation to their systems meaning the only really unique feature of SkyTrain technology is its steep grade climbing ability and painfully small rolling stock. I would seriously hope for any future NEW lines we look to a system with a wider loading gauge and platforms that aren't Canada Line length however that's not going to happen in Surrey First. Even a SkyTrain Line covering all the routes they have proposed LRTs for would be pushing 5+ billion.

And it's not like building LRT actually shuts your options to upgrading to something that has equivalent capacity to SkyTrain (not a full metro) in the future just by adding grade separations where needed as with something like the Eglinton LRT which will have the same capacity as our SkyTrain Lines.

Something I really worry about after seeing Toronto is what will happen if there's too big of a push for fully grade separated systems all over the place akin to Rob Ford era Toronto. Instead of building several LRTs Ford pushed the massively underperforming Sheppard Subway which despite being on a corridor that's easily much denser than Surrey has abysmal ridership. Only now is the whole Southern Ontario region opened up to LRTs and finally cities like Mississauga which are bigger than even Vancouver will finally have some form of higher order transit rather than constantly debating the merits of LRT and Grade Separated Systems and ending up with either nothing built or something which isn't extensive enough to attract large scale ridership.

Skytrain is cheaper per km then this LRT. LRT is no more permanent then a BRT system with its own lanes, signaling, moduler stations and foundations. Rail gets ripped out all the time and the only thing that might make it permanent is the sheer amount of money sunk into it that no one wants to scrap. I have LRT all around me along with metros, buses and commuter rail. It simply doesn't make sense in Surrey along these routes and if I was a betting man I would say it gets ripped out in 30 years. Skytrain can be built for less then this LRT line. Construction costs of guide-ways has fallen over the decades and there is less land needed and less utility relocation needed. Cost estimates for skytrain were more accurate due to recent project experience in this region and were lower then the current LRT costs, even the evergreen line cost less per kms then this. Hell the amount of concrete used for LRT wont be much less for its immense foundations, foundations that are not mass produced off site and then assembled like lego. Only the columns need to be poured for skytrain and then of course the stations large projects.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Also again, the expected ridership is 4,100 pphpd when fully upgraded... the 99 B-Line gets 5,000. So you don't need to spent the same amount - you just need to run the 96 every 3-4 minutes, allow three-door boarding, possibly create dedicated lanes or bus-only lights, and there's your LRT! It even arrives a minute or two faster!

...

If Hepner and co. announced that they'd grade-separate the problematic spots tomorrow - rather than have somebody else clean up their mess long after they retire - I'm pretty sure the entire Vancouver forum would calm down almost instantaneously.

From The Buzzer Blog - Seven things to know about Surrey LRT

LRT provides reliable travel – LRT is a new form of rapid transit in Metro Vancouver, ideal for connecting and shaping growing suburban communities. With service at street-level within a dedicated right-of-way and signal priority at intersections, LRT bypasses congestion and provides customers with consistent and reliable travel times.

Does that mean those things won't be chopped in favour of the cheapest system possible? (which honestly has been Surrey's way of pushing this)


All of this is missing the simple fact that this LRT vanity project is a solution in search of a problem. The L Line doesn't need dedicated rail - all it needs for the time being is more frequency for the 96B. Maybe in 5+ years we can start talking about if the route needs it's own dedicated (and barricaded) lanes - then we can start talking about if the route should be bus or some variety of rail.

The Fraser Hwy extension to Langley on the other hand... That's where we need Skytrain to be extended in the SoF. Even if they have to do it in a couple of phases (which wouldn't be difficult unless they insist on it being a subway) it should be the next phase and be started asap. From the current King George Station down to 168th Street (which would all be in Surrey - would that be enough to calm complaints about it being a way for people to travel through Surrey to elsewhere?) should be the current phase(s) with the full build-out to Langley coming later.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's a pretty sweeping statement. It ultimately depends on the project; BRT can cost $50M/km, but since Calgary's West LRT cost $190M/km and Toronto's Eglinton cost $280M/km, and the Broadway extension's about $300-400M/km, I could easily argue the opposite - that BRT costs are farther from LRT and RRT.

Again, it's not like LRT is driverless. Or that it won't involve ripping up the road, widening, moving utilities, laying track, then repaving. With BRT, it's ripping, widening and repaving - or if you reduce lanes instead, just repaving.



Also again, the expected ridership is 4,100 pphpd when fully upgraded... the 99 B-Line gets 5,000. So you don't need to spent the same amount - you just need to run the 96 every 3-4 minutes, allow three-door boarding, possibly create dedicated lanes or bus-only lights, and there's your LRT! It even arrives a minute or two faster!

I'll cede the permanence, but the entire point of the BRT is that it ISN'T supposed to be permanent - it's a placeholder until the SkyTrain comes along. Trying to replace an LRT that wasn't even supposed to be replaced is obviously going to be a lot harder.



Funny you should mention that - for the same money as this oversized streetcar, Surrey could be getting B-Lines to White Rock, Coquitlam and Chilliwack.

As for the Canada Line platforms, that's less the downside of ALRT and more the downside of low bids and rushing to finish before the Olympics. Oh well, live and learn.



If Hepner and co. announced that they'd grade-separate the problematic spots tomorrow - rather than have somebody else clean up their mess long after they retire - I'm pretty sure the entire Vancouver forum would calm down almost instantaneously.



A) Sheppard's problem is that it's only got five stations and one anchor point (Sheppard-Yonge), runs perpendicular to most people's commutes... and it's halfway to the suburbs. Extending it along the street or connecting it with rapid transit on the other end would make it at least a transfer line, rather than just randomly branching off Yonge-University.

The SNG line, on the other hand, is anchored by Newton and Guildford, parallel to people's commutes, and is supposed to be south-of-Fraser's downtown. No problem with ridership there.

B) Small towns like Hamilton and Waterloo have low density, low traffic and high roadspace - LRT works just fine for them. By contrast, big towns have high density, high traffic and low roadspace, so trains and traffic can't coexist as easily.

Go look at Waterloo's or Hamiltons downtown and city as a whole, it's very similar to Surrey with highrises etc going in. And frankly in terms of Sheppard it isn't against the common commute pattern since people on both sides of Yonge have commuted to Yonge to take Line One Donwtown for a long time.

While the guideway might be less expensive the stations are definetly a different story. And yes of course BRT could cost less but as I mentioned if you want all the LRT style features like dedicated lanes singal priority and electrification then it's going to end up costing almost the same.

[Reecemartin]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Skytrain is cheaper per km then this LRT. LRT is no more permanent then a BRT system with its own lanes, signaling, moduler stations and foundations. Rail gets ripped out all the time and the only thing that might make it permanent is the sheer amount of money sunk into it that no one wants to scrap. I have LRT all around me along with metros, buses and commuter rail. It simply doesn't make sense in Surrey along these routes and if I was a betting man I would say it gets ripped out in 30 years. Skytrain can be built for less then this LRT line. Construction costs of guide-ways has fallen over the decades and there is less land needed and less utility relocation needed. Cost estimates for skytrain were more accurate due to recent project experience in this region and were lower then the current LRT costs, even the evergreen line cost less per kms then this. Hell the amount of concrete used for LRT wont be much less for its immense foundations, foundations that are not mass produced off site and then assembled like lego. Only the columns need to be poured for skytrain and then of course the stations large projects.

Killing major infrasture is political suicide, you could say the thing preventing the conservatives in Ontario being elected in over a decade was Harris killing the then Eglinton Subway. The likelyhood of it being ripper out after being built is small, mmuch more likely they'd grade separate.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Go look at Waterloo's or Hamiltons downtown and city as a whole, it's very similar to Surrey with highrises etc going in. And frankly in terms of Sheppard it isn't against the common commute pattern since people on both sides of Yonge have commuted to Yonge to take Line One Donwtown for a long time.

Just because, for example, Kelowna's got high rises doesn't mean I'd compare it to Surrey. Both Waterloo and Hamilton are independent small towns (not belonging to a metro area), and both have contiguous arterial road grids to divert vehicles onto. Traffic's not a problem like it is in Surrey.

And Sheppard only connects to one end of Yonge-University. Until it closes the gap and connects to both ends, it only serves the people on the east branch going to one of those five stations. That's why ridership is low.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

While the guideway might be less expensive the stations are definetly a different story. And yes of course BRT could cost less but as I mentioned if you want all the LRT style features like dedicated lanes singal priority and electrification then it's going to end up costing almost the same.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

I did a lot of research into that since the last time this has been discussed.

More research is required, methinks. Hamilton's cost estimate, for example, pegs the LRT-specific guideway and underground utilities relocation at $240M - 30% of the budget. By contrast, those oh-so-expensive stations, signalling and electrification are only $103M (13% of the budget).

And since we've already got the 96 and the trolley lines in place, then that $103M - plus a few more articulateds and possible a bus-only lane, so about $200-300M - is more or less all we have to pay for BRT! Same service for a tenth of the money... seems like a no-brainer.

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

The likelyhood of it being ripper out after being built is small, mmuch more likely they'd grade separate.

People are more than willing to change proverbial horses in the middle of the proverbial stream, so long as they think they've gotten a raw deal and can get something better. Just look at Trump, or even Rob Ford.

[ClaytonA]

Even if they grade separated the crossing into/out of the City Parkway at 102 and 104 it would make a huge difference.

i.e. the turns across lanes of traffic. Intersections can be mitigated with 4-stage crossing arms, etc. Of course if this is supposed to be streetcar-like then it'll be going slow enough that crossing arms aren't required by Transport Canada.

Mainly Surrey should be required to upzone all the station areas, not just the planning documents, but the actually land use zoning. Then developers wouldn't have the extra risk of NIMBYs getting re-zoning. There'd be clearer communication of where, when, how much a development cost charge will contribute to the LRT. And regardless of how rapid transit-like this thing is, it will be busy because there's the density all around it.

This should happen as a prereq for any rapid transit development in Metro Van. Maybe the province or fed's should insist on this string before providing funding in the future.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Even if they grade separated the crossing into/out of the City Parkway at 102 and 104 it would make a huge difference.

i.e. the turns across lanes of traffic. Intersections can be mitigated with 4-stage crossing arms, etc. Of course if this is supposed to be streetcar-like then it'll be going slow enough that crossing arms aren't required by Transport Canada.

Mainly Surrey should be required to upzone all the station areas, not just the planning documents, but the actually land use zoning. Then developers wouldn't have the extra risk of NIMBYs getting re-zoning. There'd be clearer communication of where, when, how much a development cost charge will contribute to the LRT. And regardless of how rapid transit-like this thing is, it will be busy because there's the density all around it.

This should happen as a prereq for any rapid transit development in Metro Van. Maybe the province or fed's should insist on this string before providing funding in the future.

The development of the 104th ave using a street car and a 2 lane road is a bad bad idea. 104th is often jammed with 4 lanes. 2 lanes would be gridlock. if you insist on using 104th ave, keep it 4 lanes by buying up land on both sides to make it wider.

[SpongeG]

Outlook 2018: Surrey’s light-rail long game

City continues to lobby for LRT link originally pitched by Dianne Watts

By Patrick Blennerhassett | Dec. 19, 2017, midnight



https://www.biv.com/article/2017/12/...ail-long-game/