Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

This money they promised is the same money that they said was available before the plebiscite. It's not new, Surrey/TransLink still needs to come up with the municipal third.

Phew, so there is still a chance things will get delayed and eventually the best option is being selected. I like LRT in general, but it is just the wrong solution here.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Surrey Skytrain and LRT proposals are not of the same scope. The numbers quoted are quite similar, but the LRT brings a three-pronged rail network linking Whalley with Guildford, Langley City, and Newton. The Skytrain proposal usually bandied about subsitutes rapid bus for Guildford-Newton and upgrades Langley City to elevated skytrain.

True. I may be in the minority though who think we don't need LRT to Guildford or Newton yet and really what is needed is SkyTrain along Fraser Highway. The 96B I believe can sufficiently serve the other two stretches. With the widening of King George in key locations to add Bus Only queue jumper lanes, the service between Newton and Surrey Central has improved considerably during rush hour from what I've been told by friends who ride it.

For Guildford, it right now isn't bad but they could easily do the same for quite cheap in the grand scheme of things.

Surrey Central -> Langley I believe is a higher priority with how much is being built along Fraser Highway, how full the multiple buses are that go that direction, how full the 555 is which could be assisted by an actual SkyTrain, and the drive to have Surrey become an actual metro-hub for the Fraser valley rather than a Metrotown or Brentwood part 3. I also conceptually think SkyTrain down Fraser Highway would benefit Surrey from a transit standpoint far greater than 3 LRT lines.

You'd be extending the backbone of the region to Langley along Fraser Highway which arguably cuts Surrey in half (Highway 10 actually does but population wise). It would mean you could then refocus buses to hit the SkyTrain "backbone" rather than all needing to terminate at Surrey Central which is the the top North-West corner of the city. So all areas of Surrey could benefit with shorter bus routes, quicker access to SkyTrain, and easier cross-city movement.

Just my opinion though. So even if the dollars are the same, i'd rather see no LRT on KGB or 104th, improved B-Line down 104th, and SkyTrain down Fraser Highway to Langley City.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Phew, so there is still a chance things will get delayed and eventually the best option is being selected. I like LRT in general, but it is just the wrong solution here.

/signed

[Metro-One]

The section along Fraser Highway to Langley better be built as skytrain (extension of the Expo Line).

As for the other routes, honestly Rapid Bus would be just fine, but if LRt is built there, so be it.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The section along Fraser Highway to Langley better be built as skytrain (extension of the Expo Line).

As for the other routes, honestly Rapid Bus would be just fine, but if LRt is built there, so be it.

The language being thrown around suggests that Surrey wants to completely pull out of Translink... like a "we're going to play chicken with the other cities"

Like, I'm not sure what kind of sociopaths are running the city of Surrey, but the entire LRT thing seems like Watt's Vanity/Legacy project that she wants built, even if it's the worst-idea-ever, just like Glen Clark and the Fast Ferries.

Richmond has a similar idea as Surrey, for some reason wanting surface light rail under some deluded idea that urban design trumps long term costs.

Every surface light-rail system out there, nobody talks about how the deaths are completely avoidable, especially with today's distracted drivers and texting-while-walking pedestrians. Add in Uber, and similar car-sharing services, and suddenly "Vanity" projects look a lot less appealing when it's not competitive and people have more choices.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The language being thrown around suggests that Surrey wants to completely pull out of Translink... like a "we're going to play chicken with the other cities"

If that happens TransLink is over. Delta has been complaining about TransLink for years, they'd love an excuse to pull out. Surrey going their own way would start that process.

Maybe then we could have a SoF "TransLink" and a NoF "TransLink". I'm sure Vancouver, Burnaby, New West, Richmond, Coquitlam, and maybe Port Moody and Port Coquitlam would be happy to drop Delta, Surrey, and Langley.

[Kodii]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Phew, so there is still a chance things will get delayed and eventually the best option is being selected. I like LRT in general, but it is just the wrong solution here.

I am currently enrolled in the City of Surrey Transportation Lecture Series, and next week's presentation is on the LRT that the City wants to build and is already assuming as "going-to-happen" with regards to their city planning. From what I have heard from the city staff so far, they're pretty much committed to LRT technology, and I think we're going to hear why next week.

Each person in the class is tasked with an end-of-course assignment that is either an editorial letter or a PechaKucha style presentation on a transportation topic of choice relating to the City of Surrey. Mine will likely be on why the technology down Fraser Highway should be an extension of the SkyTrain.

But that's jumping ahead. I want to ask lots of questions next week to help me get a better understanding of why the City is so attached with the idea of LRT, so if you have any burning questions to ask directly to city staff, shoot me a PM or if it contributes to the discussion here, just post below, and I'll report back in just over a week!

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

If that happens TransLink is over. Delta has been complaining about TransLink for years, they'd love an excuse to pull out. Surrey going their own way would start that process.

Maybe then we could have a SoF "TransLink" and a NoF "TransLink". I'm sure Vancouver, Burnaby, New West, Richmond, Coquitlam, and maybe Port Moody and Port Coquitlam would be happy to drop Delta, Surrey, and Langley.

At one time Surrey also wanted to pull out of GVRD (Metro Vancouver) over the costs of disposing of solid waste (Surrey wanted to ship solid waste to the US).

My guess is that pulling out of TransLink would incur a massive one time charge for Surrey's share of the capital costs of existing transit infrastructure - it's not a question of simply walking away from your share of the existing debt load.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Kodii

But that's jumping ahead. I want to ask lots of questions next week to help me get a better understanding of why the City is so attached with the idea of LRT, so if you have any burning questions to ask directly to city staff, shoot me a PM or if it contributes to the discussion here, just post below, and I'll report back in just over a week!

Maybe you could ask them if they are aware of driverless technology (for buses) that will render LRT obsolete in the next few decades.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by logan5

Maybe you could ask them if they are aware of driverless technology (for buses) that will render LRT obsolete in the next few decades.

so just keep doing what isn't working, and hope these robo-buses will arrive sometime before 2040?

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

so just keep doing what isn't working, and hope these robo-buses will arrive sometime before 2040?

While I am generally suspicious of driverless-car fandom, taking 2040 at face value, that should be plenty of time for a BRT system to provide effective and economical capacity over the corridor effectively equivalent to LRT

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

If that happens TransLink is over. Delta has been complaining about TransLink for years, they'd love an excuse to pull out. Surrey going their own way would start that process.

Maybe then we could have a SoF "TransLink" and a NoF "TransLink". I'm sure Vancouver, Burnaby, New West, Richmond, Coquitlam, and maybe Port Moody and Port Coquitlam would be happy to drop Delta, Surrey, and Langley.

Nah... the province would never ceede control back to the cities over anything that crosses geographic boundaries.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadi...fall-1.1391656

Posted: Jul 21, 2013 5:06 AM ET
...

Past Canadian bankruptcies

It's that cautious integration of a large margin of error that's helped Canadian cities, says Kelcey.

"Detroit destroyed its own room for margin of error," said Kelcey. "Municipal leaders should take Detroit as a lesson to keep that room as much as possible instead of pushing themselves to the brink in terms of imprudent liabilities."

Cities didn't always have that financial breathing room.

During the Great Depression, at least five British Columbia municipalities went bankrupt. Burnaby, Merritt, Prince Rupert, plus the city and district of North Vancouver fell into a state of budget disrepair in the early 1930s.

The communities saw falling property tax revenue as fewer residents were able to pay. At the time, municipalities were also responsible for unemployment relief, taxing dwindling resources.

The disastrous failure took decades to rectify. It also became a lesson for municipalities and provinces.

A provincial ministry of municipal affairs was born, property taxation changed and social services became a provincial domain. Also, Slack notes, "a lot of the rules on borrowing came in at that time."

While those changes may have imposed necessary restrictions on municipalities and lifted the weight of social services off their shoulders, the potential for problems still loom today if leaders fail to address long-term issues, experts say

"We don't have some of the same complex financial issues that American municipalities do," said Kelcey, "but we do have this risk that everybody's quietly talking about."

'Legacy costs' hurt

A number of Canadian cities face overwhelming costs of paying the pensions of public sector retirees, a problem that will only rise at Baby Boomers enter their sunset years.

...

Hence the need to raise alarm bells about any government project, especially infrastructure that will have operational costs. Light Rail is especially bad for legacy costs in regards to drivers and accidents (eg PTSD).

Light rail kills more people than other transit options.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=10301 (Please note this is a blog, not a news item)

Light Rail Increasingly Dangerous
February 18, 2015

A pedestrian was killed by a light-rail train in Denver last Thursday, February 12. The very next day, another pedestrian was killed by a light-rail train in San Jose.

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 40 people were killed in light-rail accidents in 2012. This is the most since at least 1992 (the earliest year for which I have numbers available). While the numbers vary from year to year, in all the years since 1995, light-rail accidents killed 333 people.

A few days ago, the Antiplanner mentioned that auto accidents kill about 34,000 people a year. That sounds horrible, and it is, but unlike light-rail numbers, auto fatalities have been declining. More important, light rail carried just 26.7 billion passenger miles in all the years between 1995 and 2012. By comparison, highway vehicles traveled nearly 3 trillion vehicle miles in 2012 alone. At an average occupancy of 1.67 people per car (see page 33), that’s 5 trillion passenger miles.


In other words, light rail kills 12.5 people for every billion passenger miles carried, whereas buses kill just 4.5 people per billion passenger miles. Urban roads and streets, by comparison, kill about 8.2 people per billion vehicle miles, which works out to 4.9 per billion passenger miles. While buses are slightly safer than cars, light rail is 2-1/2 times more dangerous than cars.

Transit officials are quick to blame the victims when rail accidents kill. “Did he dive under the train? We don’t know,” said a Denver official. (It turned out the man was slightly disabled.) But the real problem is putting 100,000-pound vehicles (or, worse, 300,000-pound trains) in the same streets as 150-pound pedestrians.

Denver compounded the problem by stupidly building its downtown light-rail tracks on one-way streets with the trains moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the traffic. This means pedestrians looking for cars coming from one direction may not see the train coming from the other direction. Last Thursday’s fatality took place near this location, but as officials weren’t even certain where the accident took place, we don’t know if wrong-way travel played a role.

Unfortunately, transit agencies and rail advocates care less about public safety than in getting their projects built. I once debated the head of the American Public Transportation Association who put up a chart showing that light rail was far safer than driving–for the light-rail occupants. What happens to mere pedestrians apparently isn’t important.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Maybe then we could have a SoF "TransLink" and a NoF "TransLink".

That would be horrible, especially if they would introduce separate ticketing systems and zones (not again!). I cannot see such being a good idea, as without collaboration both sides would be able to pull together even less funding and these projects have price tags in the billions. Better stick together.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jhausner

True. I may be in the minority though who think we don't need LRT to Guildford or Newton yet and really what is needed is SkyTrain along Fraser Highway. The 96B I believe can sufficiently serve the other two stretches. With the widening of King George in key locations to add Bus Only queue jumper lanes, the service between Newton and Surrey Central has improved considerably during rush hour from what I've been told by friends who ride it.

For Guildford, it right now isn't bad but they could easily do the same for quite cheap in the grand scheme of things.

Surrey Central -> Langley I believe is a higher priority with how much is being built along Fraser Highway, how full the multiple buses are that go that direction, how full the 555 is which could be assisted by an actual SkyTrain, and the drive to have Surrey become an actual metro-hub for the Fraser valley rather than a Metrotown or Brentwood part 3. I also conceptually think SkyTrain down Fraser Highway would benefit Surrey from a transit standpoint far greater than 3 LRT lines.

You'd be extending the backbone of the region to Langley along Fraser Highway which arguably cuts Surrey in half (Highway 10 actually does but population wise). It would mean you could then refocus buses to hit the SkyTrain "backbone" rather than all needing to terminate at Surrey Central which is the the top North-West corner of the city. So all areas of Surrey could benefit with shorter bus routes, quicker access to SkyTrain, and easier cross-city movement.

Just my opinion though. So even if the dollars are the same, i'd rather see no LRT on KGB or 104th, improved B-Line down 104th, and SkyTrain down Fraser Highway to Langley City.

I completely agree.

The work they just finished on King George adds a dedicated bus lane almost the whole way between 72nd and 96th AVE. It's great. They just really need to do a tiny bit more work, and they could have dedicated bus lanes the whole way. And it does make a difference. I really don't see how being on an LRT would be any faster unless it cuts a whole lot of stops or has absolute signal priority (not that there are actually that many lights between 72nd and Fraser Hwy).

But honestly, there is all this talk of spending billions at once. What is desperately needed, and it would be a game changer for tens of thousands of people, is just extending the Skytrain to 168 St, ASAP. It would probably come in at under a billion (easy). The 502 bus is packed at peak between King George and 168 (then maybe 1/3 after). And it takes FOREVER. It takes the 502 about half an hour (at best of times) to go from King George to 152nd St. IT IS INSANE. And it is still packed, standing room only. Imagine how many people don't ride because of this insanity.

Just going that far would shorten thousands of commutes by over 30 minutes, and attract so many more riders.

They should extend the B line to White Rock, and it would be amazing (and add a highway 10 overpass over King George and replace those bridges over the Nikomekl). It would actually be faster for anyone south of 72nd to take a single B line than have to transfer to LRT at Newton. So why bother?

Originally Posted by Kodii

I am currently enrolled in the City of Surrey Transportation Lecture Series, and next week's presentation is on the LRT that the City wants to build and is already assuming as "going-to-happen" with regards to their city planning. From what I have heard from the city staff so far, they're pretty much committed to LRT technology, and I think we're going to hear why next week.

Each person in the class is tasked with an end-of-course assignment that is either an editorial letter or a PechaKucha style presentation on a transportation topic of choice relating to the City of Surrey. Mine will likely be on why the technology down Fraser Highway should be an extension of the SkyTrain.

But that's jumping ahead. I want to ask lots of questions next week to help me get a better understanding of why the City is so attached with the idea of LRT, so if you have any burning questions to ask directly to city staff, shoot me a PM or if it contributes to the discussion here, just post below, and I'll report back in just over a week!

I would ask: what benefit is LRT over rapid buses to anyone who doesn't live right on the LRT tracks near a station?

According to Translink, if you live in South Surrey, your trip to King George will take longer (by at least 1 minute) under the LRT plan vs the RRT plan (that has a single ride rapid bus from SS to KG) mainly because of the extra transfer.

So why should residents in other parts of the city, pay the bill (in billions) for something that actually makes our commutes worse (or at best, identical)?

The benefit of Skytrain down Fraser Highway, is that it will save literally millions of person hours of residents lives. And all we need to do is build it. We don't have to source new trains and keep them somewhere, or train new staff, or train drivers of cars on how to avoid hitting trains.

I would also ask, what plan would result in more trees being cut down. And not just in Green Timbers, but everywhere. There are a lot of trees along Fraser Highway that could be left untouched for Skytrain, but would need to come down to widen the road for LRT. Or at least that is my feeling, and it would nice to have it confirmed or refuted.

Also, how many driveways and intersections would need to be closed or altered under each plan?

Originally Posted by logan5

Maybe you could ask them if they are aware of driverless technology (for buses) that will render LRT obsolete in the next few decades.

We've had driverless technology for trains in segregated rapid transit systems for decades, yet how many subway systems out there still have drivers? Even once driverless buses hit the streets, their adoption will take decades.

[Express691]

http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/10797.aspx

Just wanted to point out how very unrealistic the renderings are in regards to how much the road is being used.

I think LRT in surrey is just as dumb as LRT along Hastings street. People cross City Parkway just like how they cross Hastings Street west of Main Street.

As far as the 503 is concerned, I think it has been a failure thus far. Simply speaking, the demand for express is more towards Surrey Central and not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Kodii

But that's jumping ahead. I want to ask lots of questions next week to help me get a better understanding of why the City is so attached with the idea of LRT, so if you have any burning questions to ask directly to city staff, shoot me a PM or if it contributes to the discussion here, just post below, and I'll report back in just over a week!

As for questions, where would they store the trains? I suppose they would have proposals like this before starting the funding campaign.
In addition, you should ask them to describe the NAIT LRT and its success in moving people in Edmonton.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Express691

Just wanted to point out how very unrealistic the renderings are in regards to how much the road is being used.

So King George Boulevard through Surrey Central (now 3+3 lanes) will become 1+1 through lanes and left turning lanes? What are they smoking?

• Video Link

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Klazu

So King George Boulevard through Surrey Central (now 3+3 lanes) will become 1+1 through lanes and left turning lanes? What are they smoking?

• Video Link

Like I said, Sociopaths.

Daryl has a newer video about the downsides too.
• Video Link

Originally Posted by BCPhil

We've had driverless technology for trains in segregated rapid transit systems for decades, yet how many subway systems out there still have drivers? Even once driverless buses hit the streets, their adoption will take decades.

That's mostly a "Driver Union" thing. Look at the TTC to see how they can completely destroy the benefits of ATO/ATP.

I really want some government entity to stop this Surrey LRT Dog and Pony Show.

[Jebby]

LRT will employ 25,000 people!

[Waders]

“A few days ago at the first open TransLink meeting, it was also stated that they don’t have 30 per cent confidence in the cost estimate for the LRT system, either. So, you don’t have confidence in the cost estimate; you don’t have a business case,”

Source: News1130

Does anyone have more detail about this claim?
Is there a meeting minutes released by Translink on what was discussed in the open meeting?
I am curious about the estimated cost if skytrain technology is used instead.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Daryl has a newer video about the downsides too.

That's one well done video. Makes many points into a visual form.

How could we get Jason Bateman in the "No LRT" camp? He almost single-handedly killed the transit plebiscite, so this should be a piece of cake for him. Doesn't anyone think of the poor Surrey taxpayers? Someone light the Bat-eman signal!!