Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But that's the same logic against the Broadway line - "Why should I pay for a subway that only goes through Vancouver?" We're one city, and everybody should help fund everybody.

That said, yes, the main inter-regional RRT backbone (to Langley, etc) should be purely Skytrain; localized rapid lines can be Skytrain or LRT on a case-by-case basis.

Trust me, the Broadway line extension will effect the entire Metro Vancouver area. There's lots of University students and workers heading to UBC from Surrey. Whereas Surrey's LRT is only going to be used by Surrey citizens which is why I think that an LRT project should be funded by the people who will actually use it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

Trust me, the Broadway line extension will effect the entire Metro Vancouver area. There's lots of University students and workers heading to UBC from Surrey. Whereas Surrey's LRT is only going to be used by Surrey citizens which is why I think that an LRT project should be funded by the people who will actually use it.

What about the Evergreen and Langley Skytrain extensions? Wouldn't those only be used by Tri-Cities or Langley residents?

Again, a willingness to contribute to a neighbourhood on the other side of town means the difference between a city and a series of villages crammed next to each other.
Surrey needs rapid transit now. Another day it'll be Langley, or North Van, or Burnaby, or Richmond, or Vancouver again. And I'm happy to help pay for each and every one of them.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What about the Evergreen and Langley Skytrain extensions? Wouldn't those only be used by Tri-Cities or Langley residents?

Again, a willingness to contribute to a neighbourhood on the other side of town means the difference between a city and a series of villages crammed next to each other.
Surrey needs rapid transit now. Another day it'll be Langley, or North Van, or Burnaby, or Richmond, or Vancouver again. And I'm happy to help pay for each and every one of them.

Honestly, it should be setup as a operations tax.

Every business or residence within 500 meters of a stop pays X$. If they are within 3 stops, then they pay 3 times. So sell the car, and make sure you're not buying condos within that 500 meter zone just to keep them empty.

Surrey may need rapid transit, but it's sure not asking for it. Rather they want a street car that is worse than the BRT business case. Nobody is going to drive to a LRT station when they can drive the entire way. That is what has happened with all LRT+Park n Ride systems. The only people who will be taking the LRT are those with no car at all who can't afford to escape Surrey. Compare that with the rest of Metro Vancouver where the speed and frequency of the the Skytrain makes it viable to live and work on the other side of the Metro area within the Skytrain service area. That is entirely justified due to the lack of bridge or freeway capacity.

See the problem with Surrey is that they want to be the center of Metro Vancouver, but they have polices that threaten or ignore the regional growth strategy. So the result is that their population is growing at the expense of services. They are planning for a LRT that would have only been suitable 3 years ago when what they really need in 20 years is a full blown subway.

If the Skytrain is extended, that works, makes the most sense, has the best business case, costs the least amount to operate, and ensures that everyone in the region gets the same service levels and properly maintained equipment. If Surrey rolls out the LRT, the first thing that is going to happen is they will lose half their bus system, and then when people don't take the LRT, it will lose half it's frequency, and when it has it's first few accidents it will be slowed down.

Surrey could probably have gotten more real support for that LRT project had it not been a vanity project from the start. Surrey didn't consult with anyone but a few street-car fanciers before announcing a LRT, and thus still has no business case for it.

The rest of North America tries to avoid the mistake of multiple independent lines, because that means they are in competition with each other, not complementing each other. Surrey makes vague threats about wanting to pull out of Translink, and I would like to see that bluff called.

[Kisai]

http://www.bclocalnews.com/business/...ml?mobile=true

Sometime in 2022, commuters in Surrey should be able to use a light rail transportation system to travel between City Centre and Guildford, as well as north and south on King George Boulevard.

That's if the projected timeline for the planning and contraction of the "L" Line route remains on schedule over the next five years, City of Surrey Manager of Rapid Transit and Strategic Projects Paul Lee told the Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce Tuesday afternoon.
...

On schedule ha. Hepner said it would be operational by 2018 back in 2014.

...

Further funding will need to be secured by 2017, construction should begin by late 2018 with the start of service on the L Line scheduled for late 2022.

Private/public partnerships will be part of the funding formula, said Lee, noting that it will be "very important to combine the transportation project with land use along the line."

The L Line is one of two major rapid transit projects for Surrey which is part of the Mayors' Council proposal for transportation improvements over the next decade.

The other project is a rapid transit line along Fraser Highway connecting the end of the current SkyTrain line in North Surrey to Langley City.

"The design is in progress, and we're looking at two technologies," said Lee. "One is light rail, where (rail) cars run in the middle of the road. The other is SkyTrain, similar to that of the Expo and Millennium lines."

Noting that TransLink "is the owner" of the Fraser Highway project and Surrey "is a partner," Lee said the city prefers at-grade light rail while the province is leaning towards SkyTrain and an elevated route no mater which technology is used.

Well at least the Province/Translink still has the power to extend the Skytrain.

[logicbomb]

They are intentionally leaving out several tidbits

-104th Ave is expected to see lane reductions. 1 lane each direction.
-I can verify that there will be no left turns permitted on 104th Ave at all intersections between 150th and Whalley Blvd.
-100th Ave and 105th A Ave improvements have been shelved. There's a good chance that neither project will be completed in the next 4 years.

This is a complete clusterfuck waiting to happen, and Daryl is our only hope to stop this mess. Paul Lee is a delusional moron.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Kisai

If the Skytrain is extended, that works, makes the most sense, has the best business case, costs the least amount to operate, and ensures that everyone in the region gets the same service levels and properly maintained equipment. If Surrey rolls out the LRT, the first thing that is going to happen is they will lose half their bus system, and then when people don't take the LRT, it will lose half it's frequency, and when it has it's first few accidents it will be slowed down.

Surrey could probably have gotten more real support for that LRT project had it not been a vanity project from the start. Surrey didn't consult with anyone but a few street-car fanciers before announcing a LRT, and thus still has no business case for it.

I think most of us figure the Expo Line continuing down Fraser Hwy is pretty much a given at this point - the only question is how long until they begin work on it. Both TransLink and the province have basically said Skytrain and it's only Surrey that keeps saying LRT.

It's better if their L Line is built first. They'll have some version of rail to keep them happy, and they'll see that it's not the right thing for Fraser Hwy. The problem will be getting it right, and Surrey council is high if they think that running it down the middle of the street with no barricades is going to work. My parents (who have experienced on-street rail in Europe) went to one of their public consultation meetings and were loud about the need to barricade it to keep it separate from car traffic. The thing with that is then you need to block smaller cross streets from connecting and mid-block left turns, which council obviously wants to keep.

Private/public partnerships will be part of the funding formula, said Lee, noting that it will be "very important to combine the transportation project with land use along the line."

At least they've figured that out...

Originally Posted by logicbomb

They are intentionally leaving out several tidbits

-104th Ave is expected to see lane reductions. 1 lane each direction.
-I can verify that there will be no left turns permitted on 104th Ave at all intersections between 150th and Whalley Blvd.
-100th Ave and 105th A Ave improvements have been shelved. There's a good chance that neither project will be completed in the next 4 years.

This is a complete clusterfuck waiting to happen, and Daryl is our only hope to stop this mess. Paul Lee is a delusional moron.

Yeah at least King George has some width - 104th does not. Also the plan to have it turn from King George onto 104th is an accident waiting to happen. They're better off running the line only on King George and figuring out something to run between Surrey Central and Guildford.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

will this LRT dream of Surrey have to be operated by TransLink? it seems like it would be a huge money pit, operationally, for them and especially since they are against it. it doesn't seem fair to TransLink.

you need a new OMC for example where-as now they just tap into their current OMC with maybe a small holding facility.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

will this LRT dream of Surrey have to be operated by TransLink? it seems like it would be a huge money pit, operationally, for them and especially since they are against it. it doesn't seem fair to TransLink.

you need a new OMC for example where-as now they just tap into their current OMC with maybe a small holding facility.

Running Vancouver buses what seems like every 5 minutes (whether that's real or imagined) while the rest of the region tends to get buses every 30 minutes seems like a money pit for the rest of the region to subsidize Vancouver - that doesn't seem fair either.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Running Vancouver buses what seems like every 5 minutes (whether that's real or imagined) while the rest of the region tends to get buses every 30 minutes seems like a money pit for the rest of the region to subsidize Vancouver - that doesn't seem fair either.

I'm not gonna argue your point specifically, which I disagree with, but it's a different situation altogether. TransLink has no issue running rapid transit in Surrey. It just doesn't want to run rapid transit that isn't any more rapid than it is now and costs many more times to operate.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm not gonna argue your point specifically, which I disagree with, but it's a different situation altogether. TransLink has no issue running rapid transit in Surrey. It just doesn't want to run rapid transit that isn't any more rapid than it is now and costs many more times to operate.

That was just one example. It's about what 'seems' fair, not whether it is or isn't. For a lot of people there are various things about transit that don't seem fair - from their personal point of view.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Running Vancouver buses what seems like every 5 minutes (whether that's real or imagined) while the rest of the region tends to get buses every 30 minutes seems like a money pit for the rest of the region to subsidize Vancouver - that doesn't seem fair either.

Let your opinion be known to translink....but before you do you may want to look at the bus performance review which has a lot of good info on utilization/capacity/cost recovery of the different routes.

[Cypherus]

Skytrain connects cities and people within a region, whereas LRT connects two or more coffee shops within a city. It just doesn't make any economical sense to use LRT as a means to move people, when demand is from people who want to swiftly get to one place or the other that skytrain has proven to be effective at doing all along. However, Paul Lee is hellbent on creating a community of coffee shops interconnected by a low speed LRT system clogging up roads and creating traffic jams. Nice community all right...

[swimmer_spe]

Because Surrey wants 3 branches, would building them as 3 branches of a Skytrain line or would building them as an extension and then a separate line of the Skytrain make the most sense?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Rico

Let your opinion be known to translink....but before you do you may want to look at the bus performance review which has a lot of good info on utilization/capacity/cost recovery of the different routes.

^ This. The 99 (which sometimes actually runs every three minutes at peak hours) has enough ridership to turn a profit with every bus. Few routes in the suburbs can claim the same - like it or not, Vancouver is subsidizing them.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Because Surrey wants 3 branches, would building them as 3 branches of a Skytrain line or would building them as an extension and then a separate line of the Skytrain make the most sense?

Well, since 1 in 3 Expo trains already gets short-turned to Production Way/SFU, that reduces Surrey's maximum frequency to 2 trains every 4.5 minutes. That eliminates the three branches option; definitely not enough trains to share, unless we'd like to have SoF residents wait 6-7 minutes at rush hour.

So it's got to be a Langley extension, then a separate line for the dogleg. Not sure if a Guildford-Newton SkyTrain would get enough ridership to cover the cost though - better to improve bus service, then wait and see.

[Metro-One]

I say give Surrey their L branched LRT. i would prefer a rapid bus, but it seems they will only be satisfied with an LRT.

In return, Surrey should get little to no say regarding the skytrain extension to Langley (a regional connection vs. their local LRT). Looks like this may be one of the beneficial occasions where Translink actually has legal control over a road.

Making the extension to Langley LRT makes no sense whatsoever, and would only add a needles exchange at King George.

I think this is a good compromised solution.

PS, what is it with local city politicians and their love of surface LRT? Port Moody, Richmond, and now Surrey all wanted / want surface LRT. Thank goodness the province prevailed regarding Port Moody and Richmond and built superior Skytrain grade separated lines.

This is the one issue where I actually like Vision Vancouver, they want a subway continuation of the Millennium line, nothing else, down Broadway.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Running Vancouver buses what seems like every 5 minutes (whether that's real or imagined) while the rest of the region tends to get buses every 30 minutes seems like a money pit for the rest of the region to subsidize Vancouver - that doesn't seem fair either.

Median Cost Per Boarded Passenger (2015)

Vancouver/UBC: $1.15
South of Fraser: $1.92
System-Wide: $1.40

Source


Boardings per Revenue Hour (2015)

Vancouver/UBC: 76
South of Fraser: 43
System-Wide: 59

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu...%20Figures.pdfSource


Passenger Turn-Over (2015)

Vancouver/UBC: 127%
South of Fraser: 72%
System-Wide: 91%

Source


Source

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I say give Surrey their L branched LRT. i would prefer a rapid bus, but it seems they will only be satisfied with an LRT.

In return, Surrey should get little to no say regarding the skytrain extension to Langley (a regional connection vs. their local LRT). Looks like this may be one of the beneficial occasions where Translink actually has legal control over a road.

Making the extension to Langley LRT makes no sense whatsoever, and would only add a needles exchange at King George.

I think this is a good compromised solution.

PS, what is it with local city politicians and their love of surface LRT? Port Moody, Richmond, and now Surrey all wanted / want surface LRT. Thank goodness the province prevailed regarding Port Moody and Richmond and built superior Skytrain grade separated lines.

This is the one issue where I actually like Vision Vancouver, they want a subway continuation of the Millennium line, nothing else, down Broadway.

I suspect Surrey's has more to do with establishing itself as a separate identity, but for Richmond at least it all had to do with urban design. I know you disagree, but many people dislike the guideways overhead. And while a subway would take care of this, it's not possible in Richmond, if the cost would even be acceptable.

[Sheba]

Apparently I need to repeat that I love Skytrain and am not a fan of LRT the way Surrey has it planned. Yes the extension down Fraser Hwy is a regional backbone connection and needs to be Skytrain.

But lets take a look at something - the Skytrain system has 47 station (according to the Google search I just did). There are 9 stations on the Expo Line, 4 on the Millennium Line and (not double counting Waterfront) 8 on the Canada Line. That adds up to 21 stations in Vancouver. That's almost half of the overall number of stations, all in 1 city.

Burnaby does quite well with 11 stations on 2 lines. New West has 5 stations on 1 line. Richmond and Surrey both have 4 stations on 1 line (the airport spur isn't technically Richmond - but hey if you want you can add another 3 stations to the Richmond count).

So Vancouver has 5 times as many Skytrain stations as Surrey does and has more frequent bus service (in a nice grid pattern so you can get anywhere in the city, unlike Surrey) and you wonder why Surrey doesn't have better transit ridership than Vancouver?

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

In return, Surrey should get little to no say regarding the skytrain extension to Langley (a regional connection vs. their local LRT). Looks like this may be one of the beneficial occasions where Translink actually has legal control over a road.

Making the extension to Langley LRT makes no sense whatsoever, and would only add a needles exchange at King George.

I think this is a good compromised solution.

I think that I heard the mayor of Langley lobbying for Skytrain extension so why should Surrey get to negatively influence/affect or dictate Translink's capacity to deliver on its regional transportation mandate/obligation to the Langley region (a move that could help provide greater regional access to affordable housing/work etc.)?

[swimmer_spe]

I doubt that these lines will be built within the next 10 years. The next to be built is the extensions to UBC. From what it sounds, it will be built in 2 stages.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...Extension.aspx
If they stay on schedule, the first stage will open in 2025. Chances are, the final stage will be done by 2030.

So, in 15 years, what will Surrey and beyond look like?