Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Like I touched on above, Richmond's bus service is basically the same as Surrey's, which is why I get a little irked by Surrey always complaining about its service. Their density is the same. Yet for some reason Surrey believes it's entitled to Vancouver style frequencies, without utilising the elements that allow Vancouver to support such transit. If a route is overcrowded, then sure, improve it, but improving service just based on the opinion that "Surrey is the next great metro of BC!" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

The density is similar when you compare all of Richmond and Surrey. When you cut it down to the part of Surrey I've been listing (north of 64th Ave and west of 160th, less than half of Surrey) the area is slightly smaller than Richmond, so we'll cut a little bit of open greenspace off Richmond to make them the same size. That part of Surrey has less greenspace and (I'm guessing here) 2/3rds of Surrey's population. So the density there is higher than Richmond.

Both areas have a couple of frequent corridors, a few Skytrain stations up in one corner of their city and a night bus that only covers that bit of Skytrain. On average Richmond has local buses that start approx 4:40 - 5:00am until 1:00 - 1:30am with hourly service starting around 10pm. On average Surrey has local buses that start approx 5:15 - 5:30am until anywhere from 9:00 - 12 midnight with hourly service starting around 9:00pm on the routes that are still running.

So for a higher density area, the daytime service is pretty much the same - how is that fair, esp when you consider that Richmond has earlier morning service and much better evening service? Wanting to see 20 min service and morning /evening service that matches a lower density area is asking too much?

[nname]

Then, for the same area you mentioned:

Richmond: 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 407, 410, 430, C93, C94, C96 - 11 routes, 1 frequent

Surrey: 96, 312, 314, 316, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324, 325, 326, 329, 335, 337, 340, 341, 345, 364, 375, 388, 391, 393, 394, 395, 501, 502, 640, C71, C73, C75, C76 - 31 routes, 5 frequent

Maybe Surrey would have "better" service if they consolidate some of the routes there...

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by nname

Then, for the same area you mentioned:

Richmond: 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 407, 410, 430, C93, C94, C96 - 11 routes, 1 frequent

Surrey: 96, 312, 314, 316, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324, 325, 326, 329, 335, 337, 340, 341, 345, 364, 375, 388, 391, 393, 394, 395, 501, 502, 640, C71, C73, C75, C76 - 31 routes, 5 frequent

Maybe Surrey would have "better" service if they consolidate some of the routes there...

The 340 and C76 are outside of the area I listed (north of 64th Ave and west of 160th - west of 120th is Delta)

The 312, 316, 375, 501, 502, 640, C75 are at least half outside the area (a lot of them are more like 3/4 outside)

The 329, 345, 388, 391, 393, 394 and 395 are rush hour only routes (I didn't look at that type of route in Richmond either)

That leaves 18.5 Surrey routes (I counted the partial Surrey routes as 1/2)


While for Richmond you didn't include routes that are partly in Richmond or any of the routes on Hwy 99 - so that's the 301, 311, 351, 352, 354, 480, 601, 602, 603, 604 and 620. The 401 and 403 are pretty frequent too and you didn't mark them as such.

Btw I agree with you about combining some routes.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The 340 and C76 are outside of the area I listed (north of 64th Ave and west of 160th - west of 120th is Delta)

The 312, 316, 375, 501, 502, 640, C75 are at least half outside the area (a lot of them are more like 3/4 outside)

The 329, 345, 388, 391, 393, 394 and 395 are rush hour only routes (I didn't look at that type of route in Richmond either)

That leaves 18.5 Surrey routes (I counted the partial Surrey routes as 1/2)


While for Richmond you didn't include routes that are partly in Richmond or any of the routes on Hwy 99 - so that's the 301, 311, 351, 352, 354, 480, 601, 602, 603, 604 and 620. The 401 and 403 are pretty frequent too and you didn't mark them as such.

Btw I agree with you about combining some routes.

I include routes that have more than a couple of stops in the service area, hence I did not include those Hwy 99 routes you mentioned (only 2 stops), 480/C92 (only 1 stop), 555 (only 1 stop), 503/509/590 (drop-off/pick-up only). For frequent, I only include the routes that are at least partially considered as FTN network.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The density is similar when you compare all of Richmond and Surrey. When you cut it down to the part of Surrey I've been listing (north of 64th Ave and west of 160th, less than half of Surrey) the area is slightly smaller than Richmond, so we'll cut a little bit of open greenspace off Richmond to make them the same size. That part of Surrey has less greenspace and (I'm guessing here) 2/3rds of Surrey's population. So the density there is higher than Richmond.

Both areas have a couple of frequent corridors, a few Skytrain stations up in one corner of their city and a night bus that only covers that bit of Skytrain. On average Richmond has local buses that start approx 4:40 - 5:00am until 1:00 - 1:30am with hourly service starting around 10pm. On average Surrey has local buses that start approx 5:15 - 5:30am until anywhere from 9:00 - 12 midnight with hourly service starting around 9:00pm on the routes that are still running.

So for a higher density area, the daytime service is pretty much the same - how is that fair, esp when you consider that Richmond has earlier morning service and much better evening service? Wanting to see 20 min service and morning /evening service that matches a lower density area is asking too much?

Well I'm not convinced that Surrey is a higher density area. Just around half of Richmond is farmland, so I don't think its urban density is much lower than Surrey's. I'm surprised Surrey's late night service is so bad, so that should definitely be fixed. But like you said, their day time service is basically the same. Until we actually see the numbers for urban density, there's not much more to say. But I will say that 30 minute frequency is basically the standard for suburbs. So I'm just not sure why Surrey feels like they're getting shafted by TransLink when the service seems to be more or less the same with other suburbs. Frankly, Surrey isn't special, and I think its level of service matches its built form and density.

And like the routes mentioned above, Surrey has quite a few more FTN routes and a B-Line. While I'll admit the 401 and 403 are frequent in peak hours, it's still not the same. So while Richmond has better late night service, it would appear that Surrey might actually have better day service.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Sheba

What I seem to constantly read on here (including from you) is basically that Surrey should just suck it and accept the bus service they have. As I posted previously...

Where did I say that? I said they should build dedicated bus lanes with signal priority along the major routes:

• King George from Surrey Central down to Newton
• 104th Ave from Surrey Central and then down 152 St. to Fleetwood
• Fraser Highway to Langley (this should eventually be upgraded to SkyTrain in the next 15 years)

I haven't said that Surrey "should just suck it and accept the bus service they have" so I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm gonna back up Logan here and say Surrey doesn't NEED rail transit the way that Broadway does, simply because none of their buses have 55,000 people a day riding it. There's no reason Surrey can't have articulated buses come every 3 minutes either, which I suspect would be enough.

That being said, the political reality is that Surrey is gonna get rail transit. And if it does, I want it to be future proof–I want it to be SkyTrain.

Difficult to argue against your post. You are fairly spot on. Only thing I care about when I take transit is predictability. I don't care what mode it is. I want to know if I jump on transit X it will take me Y minutes to get to point Z.

Skytrain does that almost always. Bus service in Vancouver also largely does that. Bus service south of Fraser almost never does that. If they can improve the bus network so that it matches reliability with other modes and other cities, then people will be happy and use it.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Difficult to argue against your post. You are fairly spot on. Only thing I care about when I take transit is predictability. I don't care what mode it is. I want to know if I jump on transit X it will take me Y minutes to get to point Z.

Skytrain does that almost always. Bus service in Vancouver also largely does that. Bus service south of Fraser almost never does that. If they can improve the bus network so that it matches reliability with other modes and other cities, then people will be happy and use it.

Yeah, there definitely has to be more accountability for predictability. Too many times does the community shuttle by my house not show up at all, or shows up going the wrong way. I live in a cul-de-sacy area where the bus takes turns doing a clockwise and counter-clockwise loop every half hour, so it screws with drivers a lot. It's understandable, but still a piss off. I guess that's just another way that Vancouver's built form is better for transit than the suburbs though. Surprised that happens in Surrey though, Richmond buses are generally on time and have few predictability issues I can think of right now.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I grew up in North Delta over by Scottsdale and have family in Newton. One of the reasons I moved to Burnaby is for better transit (FYI a lot of the buses in Burnaby are every 30 mins - we just have Skytrain and a few main corridors that have FTN service). Pulled from their Wiki pages (2011 numbers, presumably the latest that are available):

Burnaby
Total Area: 90.61 km2
Population Total: 223,218
Population Density: 2,463.5/km2

Surrey
Total Area: 316.41 km2
Population Total: 468,251
Population Density: 1,500/km2

...and that's why Burnaby has better transit service - the population may be smaller but the all important density is a lot higher. True, if you cut it off at 64th Ave in the south and 160th St to the east (where TransLink provides most of the bus service in Surrey) you'd have a much smaller area but the density would still be lower.

What Surrey really needs is more 20 min service and later service - that by itself would vastly improve bus service in the region. TransLink needs to (finally) grow Surrey's bus service the way the rest of Metro Vancouver has. Expo Line also needs to continue down Fraser Hwy.

Burnaby didn't have that population or density when they built either the Expo Line or Millennium line. People still call the M line the "nowhere to nowhere line". I don't think that is the case anymore. but it has taken almost 15 years. Seriously, in 1986 there was no Pattison, Metrotown, or Edmonds. Now look at those stations. In 2002 there was nothing around Gilmore, Brentwood, Holdom, Sperling, Lake City Way, or Production Way, and just a few government subsidized concrete ghettos around Lougheed. I used to ride home from BCIT and be the only person on the Skytrain after 6:30pm on the M line. Now look at it. That line drove growth.

The extension to Coquitlam was pretty much a sure thing when the M line was built, so Coquitlam started building knowing it was going to come. My friend sold his place next to Burquitlam station in 2008 for a premium (right before the crash) because the buyers were certain they were cashing in right before they started construction of the Evergreen line. It is sad it has taken this long to happen, but Coquitlam has operated on the belief it was always going to happen any day.

Why can't Surrey and Langley be given the same chance?

Surrey is trying. We have achieved that density even though 1/3 of the land is in the ALR. You take that land out and our density pops over 2100/km2. Pretty close to Burnaby. Plus there is even more land that is outside the ALR zoned for agriculture, take that out, now we are more dense than Burnaby.

And that is not counting the places that have not been built up yet. There are plenty of places that are virtually untouched, waiting for development. Outside the ALR, easily 1/4 of the area of the city is undeveloped. That counts against our density, but should be of great concern: what will we do with it? For every "Surrey Special" that is built, there are many many times more condo units, row homes, duplexes, and townhouses going to market.

And that is without any promise of Rapid Transit. Imagine what we would be encouraged to do if it was guaranteed to happen. But without the same chances that Burnaby, New Westminster, Richmond, and now Coquitlam were given well before their density warranted construction, how are we supposed to achieve the same things?

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Burnaby didn't have that population or density when they built either the Expo Line or Millennium line. People still call the M line the "nowhere to nowhere line". I don't think that is the case anymore. but it has taken almost 15 years. Seriously, in 1986 there was no Pattison, Metrotown, or Edmonds. Now look at those stations. In 2002 there was nothing around Gilmore, Brentwood, Holdom, Sperling, Lake City Way, or Production Way, and just a few government subsidized concrete ghettos around Lougheed. I used to ride home from BCIT and be the only person on the Skytrain after 6:30pm on the M line. Now look at it. That line drove growth.

The extension to Coquitlam was pretty much a sure thing when the M line was built, so Coquitlam started building knowing it was going to come. My friend sold his place next to Burquitlam station in 2008 for a premium (right before the crash) because the buyers were certain they were cashing in right before they started construction of the Evergreen line. It is sad it has taken this long to happen, but Coquitlam has operated on the belief it was always going to happen any day.

Why can't Surrey and Langley be given the same chance?

Surrey is trying. We have achieved that density even though 1/3 of the land is in the ALR. You take that land out and our density pops over 2100/km2. Pretty close to Burnaby. Plus there is even more land that is outside the ALR zoned for agriculture, take that out, now we are more dense than Burnaby.

And that is not counting the places that have not been built up yet. There are plenty of places that are virtually untouched, waiting for development. Outside the ALR, easily 1/4 of the area of the city is undeveloped. That counts against our density, but should be of great concern: what will we do with it? For every "Surrey Special" that is built, there are many many times more condo units, row homes, duplexes, and townhouses going to market.

And that is without any promise of Rapid Transit. Imagine what we would be encouraged to do if it was guaranteed to happen. But without the same chances that Burnaby, New Westminster, Richmond, and now Coquitlam were given well before their density warranted construction, how are we supposed to achieve the same things?

Burnaby and Coquitlam sure have done a much better job of TOD than Vancouver IMOP. I look at Vancouver outside the downtown core and the NIMBY's sure have prevented growth where it makes sense.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Burnaby didn't have that population or density when they built either the Expo Line or Millennium line. People still call the M line the "nowhere to nowhere line". I don't think that is the case anymore. but it has taken almost 15 years. Seriously, in 1986 there was no Pattison, Metrotown, or Edmonds. Now look at those stations. In 2002 there was nothing around Gilmore, Brentwood, Holdom, Sperling, Lake City Way, or Production Way, and just a few government subsidized concrete ghettos around Lougheed. I used to ride home from BCIT and be the only person on the Skytrain after 6:30pm on the M line. Now look at it. That line drove growth.

The extension to Coquitlam was pretty much a sure thing when the M line was built, so Coquitlam started building knowing it was going to come. My friend sold his place next to Burquitlam station in 2008 for a premium (right before the crash) because the buyers were certain they were cashing in right before they started construction of the Evergreen line. It is sad it has taken this long to happen, but Coquitlam has operated on the belief it was always going to happen any day.

Why can't Surrey and Langley be given the same chance?

Surrey is trying. We have achieved that density even though 1/3 of the land is in the ALR. You take that land out and our density pops over 2100/km2. Pretty close to Burnaby. Plus there is even more land that is outside the ALR zoned for agriculture, take that out, now we are more dense than Burnaby.

And that is not counting the places that have not been built up yet. There are plenty of places that are virtually untouched, waiting for development. Outside the ALR, easily 1/4 of the area of the city is undeveloped. That counts against our density, but should be of great concern: what will we do with it? For every "Surrey Special" that is built, there are many many times more condo units, row homes, duplexes, and townhouses going to market.

And that is without any promise of Rapid Transit. Imagine what we would be encouraged to do if it was guaranteed to happen. But without the same chances that Burnaby, New Westminster, Richmond, and now Coquitlam were given well before their density warranted construction, how are we supposed to achieve the same things?

So playing with google earth I decided to measure out north surrey cutting off at the ALR. I still kept parks like tynhead and surrey bend. It came out to around 108 sq. km. Now using the numbers on Surreys website for the community estimates from 2011 to be fair put it around 226962. Using just those numbers alone for north surrey puts it at a density of around 2100/km2. Thats just north surrey with those numbers which are pretty much up there with burnaby and to think we have a 4 stops only while burnaby has 11 skytrain stops. Also lets remember those numbers are from 2011 I used.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

So playing with google earth I decided to measure out north surrey cutting off at the ALR. I still kept parks like tynhead and surrey bend. It came out to around 108 sq. km. Now using the numbers on Surreys website for the community estimates from 2011 to be fair put it around 226962. Using just those numbers alone for north surrey puts it at a density of around 2100/km2. Thats just north surrey with those numbers which are pretty much up there with burnaby and to think we have a 4 stops only while burnaby has 11 skytrain stops. Also lets remember those numbers are from 2011 I used.

I just did the same thing with West Richmond, which came out to be 49 km2. Taking the numbers from Richmond's website, these areas have 181,125 people living there. Which comes out to a density of about 3,700 km2, which is much higher than Surrey's. But Richmond has 4 SkyTrain Stations and 1 FTN bus route, while Surrey has 4 SkyTrain stations, a B-Line, 2 FTN bus routes and a plan for 28.4km of mass transit.

Here are my sources, just in case:


http://imgur.com/w0U9ciO

http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/asse..._Facts6248.pdf

Burnaby has a lot of SkyTrain because it's well positioned in the region, being right in the middle along with New Westminster.

[officedweller]

Article from the Surrey Leader - Langley Township's planner wants SkyTrain, not LRT for Fraser Highway.
... wants link to play regional, rather than local, role.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/299061851.html

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Article from the Surrey Leader - Langley Township's planner wants SkyTrain, not LRT for Fraser Highway.
... wants link to play regional, rather than local, role.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/299061851.html

When this is all done, I won't be surprised to see Surrey with some LRT lines and Fraser Hwy with Skytrain overhead (like North Road for Evergreen) all the way to Langley.

[officedweller]

That's what I would like to see too - recognizing the regional linkage that the Fraser Hwy route provides, while the other Surrey lines act as feeders to both Surrey Central and to the Expo Line to Vancouver.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

When this is all done, I won't be surprised to see Surrey with some LRT lines and Fraser Hwy with Skytrain overhead (like North Road for Evergreen) all the way to Langley.

This has been my preference all along, especially if the RFP bundles the SkyTrain extension to Langley, the tunneled Millennium Line extension, and the LRT lines. That would be a blockbuster globally-significant project that would attract a lot of bidders. They would have to thread the needle of requiring the utilization of Bombardier train technology and the Acatel(?) ATC software, for two of the three projects, but there would be some serious economy of scale implications that should deliver savings above and beyond a piecemeal approach to awarding the contracts. Plus, by having them all go forward as a single RFP, even if they are phased for construction and commissioning, will mean that we can largely sidestep the 'who goes first?' fight.

[Metro-One]

No surprise here, this has been my desired outcome from the start. I knew it was only a matter of time before Langley / Langley Township would start chiming in on the importance of the Fraser Highway link being an Expo Line Skytrain extension.

[officedweller]

Toronto's been waiting a long time for both its Rocket subway cars and its new streetcars from Bombardier...

[GlassCity]

I'd still prefer the Newton–Guildford Line to be SkyTrain as well, but it's true that the Fraser Highway Line is of much greater regional importance, so that one DEFINITELY has to be SkyTrain. I just don't want Surrey wasting Translink's money on a technology I just don't believe in.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Article from the Surrey Leader - Langley Township's planner wants SkyTrain, not LRT for Fraser Highway.
... wants link to play regional, rather than local, role.

http://www.surreyleader.com/news/299061851.html

It's unfortunate this this is being directed at TransLink rather than the City of Surrey, since TransLink would also prefer SkyTrain over LRT.