Surrey Langley Skytrain - Expo Line Extension | Proposed

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

In Surrey, what's the point? Newton to City Center is 6 god damn KM. It's a pathetic 10 minute drive.

The average commute from the Newton area right now is local bus -> bus (96B) -> Skytrain (or local bus -> Skytrain if you are lucky to be on a route that meanders to City Center as well as Newton). With LRT it's local bus -> LRT -> Skytrain. What's the point?

It's just a glorified people mover. It's like an airport, and Newton is terminal B.

That's the issue. One still has to transfer @ King George Station or Surrey Central onto the LRT which will likely have 20+min off-peak frequencies. I guarantee the LRT will see many peoples commute times increase, especially in off-peak hours.

The issue in this city is that most affordable housing suites (basements and affordable apartments) are located outside of the city center now and away from most late-night bus routes. So people are still dependent on driving. There are obvious issues surrounding safety to which is why many elect to drive to park-and-ride locations.

Instead of making life hell for drivers, we should be doing our best to minimize long-distance trips which is putting a strain on the major roads and bridge crossings (Patullo). You do this by building out our skytrain network, improving service on feeder bus routes and building park-and-rides (Guildford/Newton/Fleetwood).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

The demand for travel is one that cannot be cheaply or efficiently met by car.

Is it though?

The city of Surrey has budgeted $51 million for road construction and repair for 2015 under the capital project plan, and in the budget, roads and safety was an expense of $65 million. How much do you think Translink spends of its $1.4 billion budget maintaining service each year in Surrey? Especially when you consider 13% use transit and 83% drive. Which is more efficient, in blanket statement terms?

When you look at total cost to the traveler (combine taxes plus expenses), then yes, driving is more expensive.

But it is also a choice. Because driving in many cases saves time, and if people value time more than money, that is their choice.

And I think people are free to make the choice that suits them and their needs best. And that it is the government's roll to provide the options to people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

And the government can find efficiencies, like replacing a lot of buses with a regional rapid transit service. Or adding transit to areas where the choice is unbalanced and skewed. And of course there are times when providing the optimum choice is cost prohibitive; like adding 10 lanes into downtown or building the Canada line.

But I don't think it is the role of the government to fuck you over because you want to make one choice some politicians don't agree with.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Is it though?

The city of Surrey has budgeted $51 million for road construction and repair for 2015 under the capital project plan, and in the budget, roads and safety was an expense of $65 million. How much do you think Translink spends of its $1.4 billion budget maintaining service each year in Surrey? Especially when you consider 13% use transit and 83% drive. Which is more efficient, in blanket statement terms?

When you look at total cost to the traveler (combine taxes plus expenses), then yes, driving is more expensive.

But it is also a choice. Because driving in many cases saves time, and if people value time more than money, that is their choice.

And I think people are free to make the choice that suits them and their needs best. And that it is the government's roll to provide the options to people so they can live their lives as they see fit.

And the government can find efficiencies, like replacing a lot of buses with a regional rapid transit service. Or adding transit to areas where the choice is unbalanced and skewed. And of course there are times when providing the optimum choice is cost prohibitive; like adding 10 lanes into downtown or building the Canada line.

But I don't think it is the role of the government to fuck you over because you want to make one choice some politicians don't agree with.

Surrey is at that density and design where it doesn't really work all that well for anyone. it's too dense for cars and not dense enough for bus service to be economical overall. As it happens, translink makes most of it's losses on more suburban buses, thanks to their low ridership, lower turnover, and long distances they must travel. The rail lines cover their own ongoing costs and the central bus routes have rather low costs due to their high farebox ratios.

But the city recognizes that it has to grow, and that so much of that growth is going to be infill growth. And every time someone moves to Surrey, this problem gets worse without effective transit operating practices. But with effective operating practices, that person moving to Surrey, to a point, makes the system work better. The buses are fuller per driver, there's more business for the merchants without needing to allot more space for parking, the public utilities can squeeze more use out of a given length of piping or wiring or asphalt. And growth is freed from car capacity.

Essentially you're saying that that busload of people sitting behind a line of cars should continue be fucked because you perceive that lane being allocated towards high-volume uses to be fucking yourself. And that the taxpayer should pay that driver to sit in traffic while we're at it. In the end of the day, someone's going to have to get out of the way, and I'd rather that it was the person who consumes more space and burns more gasoline and sends more people to the hospital every single year.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Surrey is at that density and design where it doesn't really work all that well for anyone. it's too dense for cars and not dense enough for bus service to be economical overall. As it happens, translink makes most of it's losses on more suburban buses, thanks to their low ridership, lower turnover, and long distances they must travel. The rail lines cover their own ongoing costs and the central bus routes have rather low costs due to their high farebox ratios.

But the city recognizes that it has to grow, and that so much of that growth is going to be infill growth. And every time someone moves to Surrey, this problem gets worse without effective transit operating practices. But with effective operating practices, that person moving to Surrey, to a point, makes the system work better. The buses are fuller per driver, there's more business for the merchants without needing to allot more space for parking, the public utilities can squeeze more use out of a given length of piping or wiring or asphalt. And growth is freed from car capacity.

Essentially you're saying that that busload of people sitting behind a line of cars should continue be fucked because you perceive that lane being allocated towards high-volume uses to be fucking yourself. And that the taxpayer should pay that driver to sit in traffic while we're at it. In the end of the day, someone's going to have to get out of the way, and I'd rather that it was the person who consumes more space and burns more gasoline and sends more people to the hospital every single year.

It depends. Translink's best guess is that in 2041, with LRT plan1 the ride share on transit in the study area will be 15%

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu...ve_Summary.pdf

Lets assume that because there aren't many roads into downtown Surrey that a road like 104ave represents the average of mode share. Lets even jack it up. So assume 25% of the people using 104 Ave are on transit. If you only have 2 lanes each way to work with, I don't see how dedicating 50% of road space to 25% of users, is not making things worse for the majority. So what if you pay a bus driver to sit in traffic. That salary is comparable to the combined lost man hours of all the other people stuck in traffic. Translink might save a bit of money on it's payroll, but society loses out.

Also, during most of the day, the traffic isn't horrible on most of the proposed route. The only place where a bus gets stuck behind a line of cars is on Fraser Highway around 152nd (it takes about 25minutes to go from 140 St to 152 St, which is probably the longest backup I can think of in the lower mainland). But there is actually room along there to widen the road for bus/LRT anyway, or better yet, have Skytrain go right over it.

But by taking lanes away, you would be making things worse for a lot of people, while the gains by the smaller number or winners isn't even that big. You just end up with a giant net loss in time on society. I don't know if that represents the will of the people.

[Rico]

BC Phil, I think you are looking at this wrong, a car lane has a capacity of 2000 people per hour, so if your transit carries more than 2000 people per hour per direction more people benefit from giving transit an exclusive lane than are inconvenienced.

[GMasterAres]

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"

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.

Surface LRT issues typically come down to accidents from left turners. That can be entirely avoided if you employ hook-turns like is done in many parts of Australia. Surrey has the road right-of-way width to easily employ hook turns though it would take most people a while to get used to since it is completely foreign in North America.

Then again we're starting to build more round-abouts so who knows.

That said I still want SkyTrain down Fraser Highway.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It depends. Translink's best guess is that in 2041, with LRT plan1 the ride share on transit in the study area will be 15%

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu...ve_Summary.pdf

Lets assume that because there aren't many roads into downtown Surrey that a road like 104ave represents the average of mode share. Lets even jack it up. So assume 25% of the people using 104 Ave are on transit. If you only have 2 lanes each way to work with, I don't see how dedicating 50% of road space to 25% of users, is not making things worse for the majority. So what if you pay a bus driver to sit in traffic. That salary is comparable to the combined lost man hours of all the other people stuck in traffic. Translink might save a bit of money on it's payroll, but society loses out.

Also, during most of the day, the traffic isn't horrible on most of the proposed route. The only place where a bus gets stuck behind a line of cars is on Fraser Highway around 152nd (it takes about 25minutes to go from 140 St to 152 St, which is probably the longest backup I can think of in the lower mainland). But there is actually room along there to widen the road for bus/LRT anyway, or better yet, have Skytrain go right over it.

But by taking lanes away, you would be making things worse for a lot of people, while the gains by the smaller number or winners isn't even that big. You just end up with a giant net loss in time on society. I don't know if that represents the will of the people.

You have some really good points and I've also been fairly dead-set against LRT taking away lanes or even going down 104th. I think 108th would be better or if they want to go down 104th they need to widen the row so you can get LRT + 2 lanes of traffic either direction.

104th is a major artery connecting the SFPR directly to Highway 1 through the heart of Surrey Central and Guildford.

You're spot on about Fraser Highway though. Honestly I think they could reduce traffic by FINALLY widening Fraser Highway from Whalley Bvd to 148th to 2 lanes and then adding a right turn lane and extending the left turn lane at 152nd east-bound.

The reason why cars back up at 152nd is because, like Vancouver and its left turn/right turn problem, a lot of people turn South onto 152nd from Fraser Highway and get stuck waiting for pedestrians so you're effectively down to 1 lane through that major busy intersection.

If they added a right-lane queue then you'd have 2 lanes through and a longer left turn would mean cars weren't backing up into the left through lane in higher traffic scenarios.

Do that and Fraser Highway for road traffic would likely be fine for another 10 years or so. I still think SkyTrain though through to Langley is a no-brainer but it isn't the solution for the cars.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Rico

BC Phil, I think you are looking at this wrong, a car lane has a capacity of 2000 people per hour, so if your transit carries more than 2000 people per hour per direction more people benefit from giving transit an exclusive lane than are inconvenienced.

That only works if the only cars traveling along that lane live along that lane and will switch over to transit. There are many plausible scenarios where you could add transit and the 2000 people per hour capacity is still maxed out. Especially on many arterial roads in Surrey where people that drive the roads that would have LRT along them don't live anywhere near the roads that would have LRT along them.

This is simply because Surrey doesn't have many North-South or East-West major roads that cross the city. 1/4 or less of Vancouver's entire area has more full-through North-South and East-West major routes than all of Surrey combined.

So everyone is funneled onto the same roads. If you take away road capacity and add transit you only benefit those living directly on the line.

Just look at the traffic statistics along Cambie street. It hasn't really changed since Canada Line opened and that has a huge amount of capacity.

1999 AM North @ Broadway: 2242 cars
2002 AM North @ Broadway: 2174 cars
2004 AM North @ Broadway: 2644 cars
2006 AM North @ Broadway: 2198 cars
2009 <<- Canada Line Opens
2011 AM North @ Broadway: 2071 cars

1999 AM North @ Broadway: 2987 cars
2002 PM South @ Broadway: 2896 cars
2004 PM South @ Broadway: 2736 cars
2006 PM South @ Broadway: 2266 cars
2009 <<- Canada Line Opens
2011 PM South @ Broadway: 2409 cars

It goes up and down depending on the date they take too in an over 10 year span and seemingly un-affected by Canada Line (slightly down in 2011 AM but dropped more 1999 to 2002 with no Canada Line... up in 2011 from 2006 PM South despite Canada Line)

[Cambie @ Broadway stats above are from Vancouver and are for 2 hour spans.]

People that argue that transit replaces cars or reduces traffic on major arteries are just ignoring facts.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

It depends. Translink's best guess is that in 2041, with LRT plan1 the ride share on transit in the study area will be 15%

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu...ve_Summary.pdf

Lets assume that because there aren't many roads into downtown Surrey that a road like 104ave represents the average of mode share. Lets even jack it up. So assume 25% of the people using 104 Ave are on transit. If you only have 2 lanes each way to work with, I don't see how dedicating 50% of road space to 25% of users, is not making things worse for the majority. So what if you pay a bus driver to sit in traffic. That salary is comparable to the combined lost man hours of all the other people stuck in traffic. Translink might save a bit of money on it's payroll, but society loses out.

Also, during most of the day, the traffic isn't horrible on most of the proposed route. The only place where a bus gets stuck behind a line of cars is on Fraser Highway around 152nd (it takes about 25minutes to go from 140 St to 152 St, which is probably the longest backup I can think of in the lower mainland). But there is actually room along there to widen the road for bus/LRT anyway, or better yet, have Skytrain go right over it.

But by taking lanes away, you would be making things worse for a lot of people, while the gains by the smaller number or winners isn't even that big. You just end up with a giant net loss in time on society. I don't know if that represents the will of the people.

You're not going to get the usage that you don't plan for.

With respect to 'lost man hours of all the other people stuck in traffic'. Most of those manhours are fake, and when faced with constraints on road capacity people adjust their habits accordingly. Those manhours mostly pay zero dollars, and society should spend no more effort in alleviating them then they spend on reducing wait times at Tim Hortons ('think of the manhours!'). For the people who *are* losing man hours on the road, professional drivers, encouraging more people to drive their private cars in general is the problem for them.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Rico

BC Phil, I think you are looking at this wrong, a car lane has a capacity of 2000 people per hour, so if your transit carries more than 2000 people per hour per direction more people benefit from giving transit an exclusive lane than are inconvenienced.

The 2000 figure, from what I've read, references the number of cars per hour in a lane, not people. So 2000 pph is true, only if every single vehicle only has 1 person in it. But some of those vehicles are buses. So, 1 direction on 104 ave can have 4000 vehicles/hour pass by. Today, how many buses go past a stop in an hour, during peak times? Now we are talking significantly more people per hour when you consider mixed use traffic.

That said, I do agree. 1 lane dedicated to rapid transit can carry transport more people than 1 lane of general traffic. Operative word being can

What I'm arguing is that in this specific situation, on 104 ave, taking a lane from general traffic, and converting it to transit only, would do more harm that good.

According to Translink, peak demand during peak hours in 2041, on the 104 Ave section will be 1800 pphpd.

http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Docu...ve_Summary.pdf
-pg 16.

The capacity of LRT on 104ave is 6500 pphpd. Seems like overkill.

Sticking with regular buses under the "Best Bus" plan gives you a capacity of 4000 pphpd. Even going with the business as usual plan provides a capacity of 1700 pphpd (more than peak demand under the best case). 104 ave is actually the only corridor where in every alternative, expected load does not exceed capacity.

Going with RRT 1 plan (Skytrain on Fraser and NO rapid bus) leaves the load on 104 Ave at 1000 pphbd; but jacks up load on Fraser to 6800. 6800 is actually higher than RRT1a's load of 6600, because without rapid transit on 104 ave, people from the Guildford area will change their travel pattern to ride Skytrain, now to their south.

Lets compare LRT1 (LRT on Fraser and 104) vs RRT1 (RRT on Fraser, regular bus on 104) ignoring ridership on King George.

LRT1:

• 104 Ave (LRT): 1800 pphpd
• Fraser (LRT): 4300 pphpd
• Combined: 6100 pphpd

RRT1:

• 104 Ave (shit bus): 1000 pphpd
• Fraser (skytrain): 6800 pphpd
• Combined: 7800 pphpd

Leaving 104 ave as is and building Skytrain nets an extra 1700 pphpd over building LRT.

People will find a way to the Skytrain, it's what has happened in every other city in the lowermainland.

So really?

What are we losing by not having rapid transit in dedicated lanes on 104 Ave?

No direct rapid transit access hasn't dampened the communities of Kerrisdale, Edmonds, or Royal City Center. Why does Guildford need a spur line straight to it? People all over the lower mainland have found a way to easily get to the nearest Skytrain station.

Is there any benefit at all to spending that money on 104 vs using it to build Skytrain instead?

Originally Posted by Bdawe

You're not going to get the usage that you don't plan for.

With respect to 'lost man hours of all the other people stuck in traffic'. Most of those manhours are fake, and when faced with constraints on road capacity people adjust their habits accordingly. Those manhours mostly pay zero dollars, and society should spend no more effort in alleviating them then they spend on reducing wait times at Tim Hortons ('think of the manhours!'). For the people who *are* losing man hours on the road, professional drivers, encouraging more people to drive their private cars in general is the problem for them.

That is completely not true.

If time spent traveling has zero subjective value, then why spend any money to alleviate any long commutes? Even transit ones? Why didn't we just leave all the horse and buggy trails as they were? People would find a way to deal with it after all.

What? There's a river here? No need to build a bridge, the people on the other side are on that side for a reason.

And the time people wait in line at Tim Hortons does have a value. You really don't think Tim's has done studies and actually determined exactly how much they lose depending on how long the line is? They used to not take debit cards because they calculated they would lose more money from people getting upset at how long the line was vs turning away debit sales.

And I can't count how many times I've walked past a Tim Hortons and thought I would love a donut, walk in, see the line, and walk right out. My time does have value.

I worked in a retail chain and they had a study done to show how much they lose based on how long it takes for employees to say "hello" to a customer when they first walk in the door (if you wait longer than 30 seconds you probably lost a sale). Time is important.

In one post, your all time is money; now you are time is bullshit. Which is it?

[Rico]

BC Phil, first I did not mean to advocate for LRT per say as my prefered option is Skytrain...that said a couple of points. You are sort of correct about the 2000 being vehicles per hour per lane...but there are variations based on speed and turn conflicts, average city type streets are about 1700 vehicles per hour....and average vehicle occupancy is about 1.3 people per car so more than the 2000 I talked about, but not by much. The second point is I talked about number of people who benefit as opposed to capacity, at 2000 people per hour per direction for transit more people will benefit (transit users) versus suffer (car users). I did this because demand for road space is USUALLY like a gas, it expands or contracts like a gas. Add capacity with a new road and it will get used, take it away it will adjust. This is why traffic on Cambie is the same now despite the increased capacity of the Canada line. All the people who switched to Canada line freed up road space....that was used up by people who would not have driven on Cambie at that time before. If you are concerned about total capacity instead of just maximizing the number of people who benefit you are correct , you would need about 4000pphpd.

[Express691]

http://www.lightraillinks.com/

Never knew a pro-LRT group existed in the first place. Bet you none of these guys have SSP or CPTDB accounts.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Express691

http://www.lightraillinks.com/

Never knew a pro-LRT group existed in the first place. Bet you none of these guys have SSP or CPTDB accounts.

It doesn't exist per se. It's just a business lobby. No actual transit users.

Coalition Members

Our coalition includes community groups, neighbourhood associations, businesses and business organizations. Member groups include:

Anthem Properties
Century Group
Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association
Fleetwood Community Association
Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society
Fraser Valley Real Estate Board
Guildford Town Centre
Lower Mainland Chambers Transportation Panel
South Surrey & White Rock Chamber of Commerce
Surrey Board of Trade
Surrey Citizens Transportation Initiative (CiTi)
Surrey Library Board Tourism
Surrey Value Industries
Blackwood Partners/Central City
Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce

Notice how these are all business associations who would benefit from pretty much anything (RRT, BRT), and there is no mention of Skytrain at all. Probably the only one there that even cares what gets built is the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society since they have been practically begging to use the SRY to run heritage trains but there's no electric infrastructure. Still, even they are a business, not a riders organization.

And in general I think it's probably a mistake to oppose "Light Rail" without the context of a better option (eg Skytrain) because that otherwise gives the impression of opposing better transit period. The light rail battles in the US are all "bus vs LRT" while the only place in the world where it's LRT vs Skytrain/Subway is here and Toronto, and Toronto loves to waste money by scrapping the previous mayors pet transit projects.

Like at this point in time if Surrey goes ahead with LRT, it's just adding to lower quality of life Surrey residents already experience from poor bus service, poor police coverage, poor traffic management, etc. All in the name of keeping taxes low.

PS. CiTi appears to no longer exist.

[CanSpice]

The federal Liberals said before the election that they would fund 100% of the new rapid transit system for Surrey/Langley. With them forming a majority government now, look for that to get ramping up sooner rather than later.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The federal Liberals said before the election that they would fund 100% of the new rapid transit system for Surrey/Langley. With them forming a majority government now, look for that to get ramping up sooner rather than later.

Context:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/fed...443/story.html

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015
...
The federal Liberals rushed to announce transit funding for Surrey’s $2.1-billion light rail project Wednesday, beating out Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, who were expected to make a similar pledge last week before they were derailed by the Syrian refugee crisis.

The move, made by Surrey-Newton Liberal candidate Sukh Dhaliwal, said the Liberals were committed to providing an additional $20 billion in public transportation funding over the next decade for the country’s top regional priorities, and “Surrey is well placed to secure B.C.’s first funding commitment under the Liberal plan.”

...

Some how this has been mis-read as promising to fund 100% of it. This is still only capital costs, not operational costs.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Context:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/fed...443/story.html


Some how this has been mis-read as promising to fund 100% of it. This is still only capital costs, not operational costs.

Well, there's this story from the Globe & Mail:

The party will commit $20-billion to transit nationally over the next 10 years. In Surrey, the Liberals have promised the full $2.1-billion for Surrey light rail, which would be unusual if it came true. (Transit projects are typically cost-shared one third each by federal, provincial and municipal governments.)

[GlassCity]

Is it light rail for sure? Because I remember when the Conservatives (re)made their announcement of paying $700 million for Surrey rapid transit they said it would apply regardless of technology chosen. Are the Liberals doing something similar or are they committed to light rail?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Is it light rail for sure? Because I remember when the Conservatives (re)made their announcement of paying $700 million for Surrey rapid transit they said it would apply regardless of technology chosen. Are the Liberals doing something similar or are they committed to light rail?

I'm sure they will do just the same due diligence as the Conservatives. The Cons also insisted that it run as a P3. I'm not sure if any of the funding sources involved this time will have this requirement.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Is it light rail for sure? Because I remember when the Conservatives (re)made their announcement of paying $700 million for Surrey rapid transit they said it would apply regardless of technology chosen. Are the Liberals doing something similar or are they committed to light rail?

I think it depends.

If the Liberals are looking to make a splash on the national stage and prove they are true to their word, they will have to get some projects moving soon. And a major project launched now will probably come online just infront of the next federal election (a good way to keep the ridings won and maybe convert some of the NDP ones in the next election).

So if they want it to go forward, but Translink has other priorities and has no money available, then I can see the Liberals putting up all, or maybe 2/3 of the money (and let the province put in the 1/3 they already said they would).

If the feds cover all of the bill, it will probably be the most affordable plan that reaches the most people that Surrey council asks for. If translink were to say, can you please build us Skytrain for $2 billion, but we have no money so can you pay the whole thing, the feds would probably say no, we are going with LRT for the same price (just for the more ridings it hits). Unless Translink outright refuses LRT.

But if the Province were to contribute funding, I think they would prefer Skytrain. I also think that after the Evergreen line opens we will all be reminded (John Q Public will be reminded) how great it is when Skytrain opens up a new area. So public opinion might shift to Skytrain after all the tri city residents start raving about it. Also, by going from Skytrain for Evergreen to LRT for Surrey, the province might look like it feels it made the wrong choice to go with Skytrain (I think they would want to avoid those optics).

If translink or the province come up with some funding to offset the cost of going with Skytrain, and they want to go with Skytrain, then I think it would be Skytrain.

The liberals made a big deal during the campaign that the projects they would fund wouldn't be federal ideas rammed down local throats for federal prestige. They would supply funding to locally identified and initiated projects.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

If the Liberals are looking to make a splash on the national stage and prove they are true to their word, they will have to get some projects moving soon. And a major project launched now will probably come online just infront of the next federal election (a good way to keep the ridings won and maybe convert some of the NDP ones in the next election).

Which is why I expect smaller and / or faster to build projects will get a lot of love. It's not so much what projects are more important, it's what can they point to as having been built during their watch the next time there's an election.