Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

[maege]

6 hours ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

I assume it would be P3 model project where the CMBC nor BCRTC will operate this stupid, waste of money  LRT project.

It shouldn't be a P3, and will be operated by Trasnlink. 80% of the funding is on the table from the feds and the province already, and Translink's 10 year plan includes the local funding for both the Surrey LRT and Broadway extension, without either being a P3. Because the vast majority of funds are already lined up and with all parties in the Legislature trying to play nice with Translink now, I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to get the funding for the local portion since it is already outlined.

[Blue Bus Fan]

4 hours ago, maege said:

It shouldn't be a P3, and will be operated by Trasnlink. 80% of the funding is on the table from the feds and the province already, and Translink's 10 year plan includes the local funding for both the Surrey LRT and Broadway extension, without either being a P3. Because the vast majority of funds are already lined up and with all parties in the Legislature trying to play nice with Translink now, I see no reason why they wouldn't be able to get the funding for the local portion since it is already outlined.

The Canada line was similar to this funding. I think don't think they would P3 model the Broadway Subway because it's connected to the Millennium Line which was not operated in P3 model.

[maege]

24 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

The Canada line was similar to this funding. I think don't think they would P3 model the Broadway Subway because it's connected to the Millennium Line which was not operated in P3 model.

How was it similar? The P3 company covered ~$720 million, about one-third the total cost (Source) with the combination of public, Translink and airport funding covering ~$1.3-$1.4 billion. 

With Surrey LRT, 40% is already pledged by the province and feds (for a total of 80%) with Translink's 20% coming from funding laid out in the 10 year vision, I don't see how/why a P3 could occur. Also, with the high level of design work that has already been done without a P3 partner (and no mention of P3 so far), it is already quite a bit different so far compared to the Canada Line.

 

As for Broadway, the funding sources are the same as Surrey LRT, so I can't see P3 happening there either.

[Blue Bus Fan]

It will be P3:

 

We’ve successfully passed a key step in securing federal funding, with recent confirmation that the project is progressing through the P3 Canada Fund process. It’s important to keep moving forward with planning while the region continues to look for ways to fund the project’s remaining share.

- See more at: http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/19185.aspx#sthash.KRTy3myy.dpuf

[Tidom]

1 hour ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

It will be P3:

 

- See more at: http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/19185.aspx#sthash.KRTy3myy.dpuf

I look forward to such cost saving measures as single tracking down 104 except at stations,and to keep all 4 traffic lanes by shrinking the lanes down to the size of the ones on the pattullo bridge.

[Blue Bus Fan]

7 minutes ago, Tidom said:

I look forward to such cost saving measures as single tracking down 104 except at stations,and to keep all 4 traffic lanes by shrinking the lanes down to the size of the ones on the pattullo bridge.

I think the City of Surrey is going to majorly screwed over by this LRT line and hopefully the mayors, Provincal Government change the Fraser Highway line to an Expo Line extension to Langley Centre. 

[Marlow1331]

6 minutes ago, Tidom said:

I look forward to such cost saving measures as single tracking down 104 except at stations,and to keep all 4 traffic lanes by shrinking the lanes down to the size of the ones on the pattullo bridge.

Single tracking down 104? Wow, this idea just seems to be getting worse and worse as far as im concerned. A desicion that will be heavily regretted years down the road. 

[Blue Bus Fan]

On 2017-06-19 at 3:13 PM, Marlow1331 said:

Single tracking down 104? Wow, this idea just seems to be getting worse and worse as far as im concerned. A desicion that will be heavily regretted years down the road. 

This whole LRT project to going be heavily regretted years by the City of Surrey when all Metro Vancouver is seen winning fullly with SkyTrain and see reductions of bus hours to subsidy the private operate for LRT. 

[Express691]

3 minutes ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

This whole LRT project to going be heavily regretted years by the City of Surrey when all Metro Vancouver is seen win full of SkyTrain and see reductions of bus hours to subsidy the private operate for LRT. 

Unfortunately its looking like the municipal government needs to see LRT fail in front of their eyes before building skytrain.

[Marlow1331]

Well, end of the day Hepner made her promise! Nothing we can say or do now right? 

[Blue Bus Fan]

10 minutes ago, Marlow1331 said:

Well, end of the day Hepner made her promise! Nothing we can say or do now right? 

TransLink could use alternative facts to get SkyTrain by actually calling different name such as ALRT since nothing seems like it is anymore.

[maege]

3 hours ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

It will be P3:

 

- See more at: http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/19185.aspx#sthash.KRTy3myy.dpuf

Yep, they did submit through the project for that process (I never heard of any outcome) but that's the only mention I've seen of P3 for this project anytime recently. Also, submitting such an application (which was done a couple years ago if I remember properly) doesn't say for certain that will be the funding model, only that it was being looked at as a potential option at that time. Since then, there has been the federal Liberal funding that likely was more than expected under Harper, and the provincial funding match as well. In this doc, which is the current one for consultations, there is only specific mention of funding from federal, provincial, and local levels, with no even passing mention to a third party funding source. 

1 hour ago, Tidom said:

I look forward to such cost saving measures as single tracking down 104 except at stations,and to keep all 4 traffic lanes by shrinking the lanes down to the size of the ones on the pattullo bridge.

1 hour ago, Marlow1331 said:

Single tracking down 104? Wow, this idea just seems to be getting worse and worse as far as im concerned. A desicion that will be heavily regretted years down the road. 

Yeah, there's no way I can see that happening, especially since funding is essentially in place and their projected costs don't seem out of normal for LRT.  And such a decision would screw the whole line. 

1 hour ago, Blue Bus Fan said:

TransLink could use alternative facts to get SkyTrain by actually calling different name such as ALRT since nothing seems like it is anymore.

I mean Skytrain is an ALRT system. It's not really all that different from LRT technology besides the LIM. 

[GORDOOM]

3 hours ago, maege said:

Skytrain is an ALRT system. It's not really all that different from LRT technology besides the LIM.

Apart from the fact that the vehicles must operate on full ATO - human drivers tend to cause flat spots on the wheels through improper braking, as the TTC discovered - and thus the entire guideway must be fully grade-separated. And at that point you're more similar to a subway/el than to LRT. Bombardier even calls the system "Innovia Metro" now.

[maege]

22 minutes ago, GORDOOM said:

Apart from the fact that the vehicles must operate on full ATO - human drivers tend to cause flat spots on the wheels through improper braking, as the TTC discovered - and thus the entire guideway must be fully grade-separated. And at that point you're more similar to a subway/el than to LRT. Bombardier even calls the system "Innovia Metro" now.

If you are looking at what is required, that is fair. If looking at it from the perspective of what LRT can do, then LRT is able to do everything except have LIM. LRT is able to be fully grade-separated and have completely ATO, just like Skytrain. Of course LRT can also be at the complete other end of the spectrum, running essentially as a streetcar too, or anywhere in the middle, but it has the ability to be Skytrain without LIM (aka basically the Canada line).

[maege]

1 hour ago, Opal said:

Wow, just wow.  Making an already bad project even worse.  Guaranteed, they will regret this, and it won't even be in the long term, it will be in the short term.

Just to make note, single-tracking on 104 was only something @Tidom suggested and is not at all present in any current plans or ideas for the project at Translink.

1 hour ago, Opal said:

Yup, that's exactly what they need.  I honestly hope its an epic failure that ultimately results in needing to spend even more money than just simply Skytrain would've cost.

I somewhat fear that poor design that may lead to issues after it starts running could be a killer of LRT in Metro Vancouver due to public and political perception, especially since we do already have Skytrain that it will be compared against.

I find it absurd that you or anyone else would hope that to project is "an epic failure" and turns into a large sum of wasted money. Why would you ever wish that for a large public project, wasting copious amounts of public money? I totally understand being skeptical, and, especially in my case, pushing for changes or better design, but to outright hope that the project fails and that large amounts of money are wasted? Really? That seems like going way to far and pushing a favoured way out of sheer dogma rather than pushing (and hoping) for something to be the best it can, even if you still are skeptical and would prefer alternatives.

1 hour ago, Opal said:

 The one time I've been in Calgary, however, I did get "stuck" at an intersection for several minutes when the gates were down, but the light was green, and then when the gates came up the light was red, then the gates came back down again when the light was green.  I doubt that's a common thing, but it does happen and can be very disruptive in rush hour.

That sounds like an extremely poorly designed system that isn't automated like it should be.

The lights and gates should be automated together, so the light turns just before the gates start to lower, and then turns back when the gates raise. That of course should be automatically triggered by the train as it passing a certain spot on the track, set at a point where the train would cross the intersection a few seconds after the arms are fully lowered. 

That obviously sounds very different from what you experienced, and should be done much better.

[1604]

Just to elaborate on what Opal said about how at-grade crossings work in Calgary. The reason some intersections give green lights to directions that can't actually proceed is to clear any traffic that may be stopped on or near the tracks before the train arrives. By the time the train is actually in the intersection, the lights have usually reverted to allowing other traffic to proceed. In some cases, this ends up giving one traffic direction much more green light time than it would otherwise need, so if you're travelling in a different direction, you end up having to wait longer.

I don't believe this is as much of a concern with urban low floor LRT because intersections generally have less in the way of crossing protection. But, of course, there will still be impacts on traffic and pedestrians anywhere the train crosses.

[Express691]

14 minutes ago, 1604 said:

Just to elaborate on what Opal said about how at-grade crossings work in Calgary. The reason some intersections give green lights to directions that can't actually proceed is to clear any traffic that may be stopped on or near the tracks before the train arrives. By the time the train is actually in the intersection, the lights have usually reverted to allowing other traffic to proceed. In some cases, this ends up giving one traffic direction much more green light time than it would otherwise need, so if you're travelling in a different direction, you end up having to wait longer.

I don't believe this is as much of a concern with urban low floor LRT because intersections generally have less in the way of crossing protection. But, of course, there will still be impacts on traffic and pedestrians anywhere the train crosses.

Ive seen people argue that LRT vs car accidents wont happen if people pay more attention. I think the same can be accomplished if we use grade separation. 2 sides to this argument, one of which I believe involves natural selection.

[buizelbus]

11 hours ago, Opal said:

Great, you find it absurd that I hope the project will be an epic failure.  Unfortunately, that's the only way the narrow-minded politicians will learn.  By epic failure, I mean that they'll have to spend oodles more money after the fact and eventually bring the costs up to the same as what Skytrain would have been, for a far inferior system.  In my hometown of Windsor, Ontario back in the 90s, there were plans in place to build a brand new arena for the Windsor Spitfires.  I remember it well, even as a kid, and my Dad even ran for city council at one point to pressure the city on their desired location way out in the boonies (wasn't only that one issue, but it was one of the big ones).  Long story short, many people complained about the location, the city said go stuff it we know what we're doing, they built it, and now they are regretting it so much there have been some talks (mind you, not very serious though) from a couple city councilors about re-purposing the new one and building a brand new one again back downtown in the location of the old one.  Essentially, moving it out of the downtown killed all business downtown as no one ever had a reason to come.  Now, they have made some changes to the downtown and built other things (an aquatic centre) to draw people in, but the fact that the arena is so far out of the downtown is a lasting problem and will never be fully rectified.  This was one of those examples of "epic failures" of which I am speaking, which was the only way the city learned as "they knew everything" beforehand.

As for the Calgary incident, there wasn't really any other way for the intersection lights to be designed, because there was a divided road from one traffic on one side could proceed.  If the traffic lights were tied to the train gates, the traffic on the divided road would end up stopped much more often.  Mind you, this, I'm told, isn't overly common, but it does happen and can snarl already busy traffic just because of one LRT delay.  In Edmonton, the opening of the Metro Line made the news for a couple reasons, one being the traffic snarling due to the gates being down with a train in the station and nothing coming in terms of traffic, not to mention crashes that will block the intersections.  If this is what Surrey wants, by all means go for it.

No LRT system that is built in traffic (even if it is "separated" except at cross streets) can avoid such issues, and should be avoided unless they are the only feasible option (and it is not, for Surrey).

Unfortunately, fully grade separating ends up costing pretty much the same as Skytrain would, so you're not saving anything.  You can say "pay more attention" all you want, but the fact is, everyone is in a hurry and don't really care to pay more attention.

I have nothing against the "technology" of LRT (using overhead wires with a pantograph) vs. Skytrain, it's the misconceptions that it's "cheaper" but "equivalent" to Skytrain/subway that irks me the most.  There are many cities that have made LRT very successful, and for the most part, Calgary is one of them, as well as many cities in the US (Portland comes to mind first, but Minneapolis and Houston also).  But it was built in those cities not to "extend" an existing subway/Skytrain system, but as a brand new system that is better than buses alone.

And then some people say that Sky Train is outdated and obsolete. I heard someone wanted to demolish all of the Sky train and build at grade Surrey like trams to replace them, and saying they have lower costs to operate 

[GORDOOM]

2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

And then some people say that Sky Train is outdated and obsolete. I heard someone wanted to demolish all of the Sky train and build at grade Surrey like trams to replace them, and saying they have lower costs to operate 

[Express691]

S4S/Light Rail Is NOT For Surrey has come out with a new video 

 

[buizelbus]

39 minutes ago, Express691 said:

S4S/Light Rail Is NOT For Surrey has come out with a new video 

 

Didn't that come out a day ago?

[maege]

16 hours ago, Opal said:

Great, you find it absurd that I hope the project will be an epic failure.  Unfortunately, that's the only way the narrow-minded politicians will learn.  By epic failure, I mean that they'll have to spend oodles more money after the fact and eventually bring the costs up to the same as what Skytrain would have been, for a far inferior system. 

So, I'm just going to put this out there. From listening to you and others on this forum, there is a large disconnect for the purpose you see the L-line serving compared to what Translink sees it as being and is designing it for. Translink and Surrey aim to use this line to shape Surrey into a "second downtown" and serve mainly as local, highly urban service, not as a more regional connection that seems to be more of the idea from most people here. Translink's view seems to be that these LRT lines will help them begin to shape Surrey now, so that about 15-25 years from now everyone will begin to see the initial result of Surrey as a "second downtown", with the fully developed result coming 30-50 years from now. 

I think it's fairly obvious I don't completely agree with Translink's view, but also that I don't see this project as a primarily regional connector, hence a view somewhere in between. 

I don't see this project as "narrow-minded" at all. If that were the case, I would expect there to be Skytrain without any consideration for alternatives, since that is what already exists, and is where "narrow-mindedness" usually occurs (I have something, everything else is wrong and what we have is the only thing worthwhile). I understand that Translink and Surrey are attempting to not just plan for but ultimately play a large part in shaping future development. I don't completely agree with their decisions and think that they are missing two key parts: the time from being built until plans are realized, and more importantly, after the development is fully realized and where Surrey will be somewhat of a hub to commute to as well. That said, viewing it primarily as a regional connection, seems to be divergent from even current facts where Surrey is already more than just a suburb (the vast majority of transportation is explicitly local within Surrey, not regional from Surrey), and will continue to rapidly grow into its own. 

As far as the current plan being an "inferior system", for serving as a regional connector, I would agree with you. For Translink's and Surrey's ultimate vision, though, I can also see how their design could be a better option than Skytrain. Again, I don't completely agree with either, but it is fairly simple to understand each view, when thinking about the underlying perceptions for each idea.  

 

Feel free to say if you think my understanding of this from the various sides is incorrect, I'm curious to see what everyone thinks.

16 hours ago, Opal said:

As for the Calgary incident, there wasn't really any other way for the intersection lights to be designed, because there was a divided road from one traffic on one side could proceed.  If the traffic lights were tied to the train gates, the traffic on the divided road would end up stopped much more often.  Mind you, this, I'm told, isn't overly common, but it does happen and can snarl already busy traffic just because of one LRT delay.  In Edmonton, the opening of the Metro Line made the news for a couple reasons, one being the traffic snarling due to the gates being down with a train in the station and nothing coming in terms of traffic, not to mention crashes that will block the intersections.  If this is what Surrey wants, by all means go for it.

No LRT system that is built in traffic (even if it is "separated" except at cross streets) can avoid such issues, and should be avoided unless they are the only feasible option (and it is not, for Surrey).

I'm not terribly familiar with the exact situation in Calgary or Edmonton specifics, so I can't really comment. There is fairly easy to implement technology that is able to tell when a train has completely cleared an intersection into a station, which would allow for the crossing arms to raise and traffic to flow through the crossing instead of being held longer than necessary. 

Yep, there will always be some degree of extra wait with at-grade crossings, but that delay can be minimized to relatively small amounts with a good signalling and train tracking system.

16 hours ago, Opal said:

Unfortunately, fully grade separating ends up costing pretty much the same as Skytrain would, so you're not saving anything.

I completely agree.

16 hours ago, Opal said:

I have nothing against the "technology" of LRT (using overhead wires with a pantograph) vs. Skytrain, it's the misconceptions that it's "cheaper" but "equivalent" to Skytrain/subway that irks me the most.  There are many cities that have made LRT very successful, and for the most part, Calgary is one of them, as well as many cities in the US (Portland comes to mind first, but Minneapolis and Houston also).  But it was built in those cities not to "extend" an existing subway/Skytrain system, but as a brand new system that is better than buses alone.

Of course the "cheaper" part is pretty much solely due to not requiring complete grade separation all the time. Aside from that, the costs are very similar. While a system with at-grade crossing will never be completely identical or equivalent to a grade separated system (including Skytrain), it can be close, if it is designed and built to be. 

I totally agree that Vancouver is a much different scenario simply because there is Skytrain here already. That is part of the reason that there is so much more riding on the Surrey LRT (both good and bad) compared to other cities, since the Surrey LRT will forever be compared to Skytrain, for better or worse. As such, I do strongly believe that the Surrey LRT needs to be designed and built with that in mind, and the current design is lacking, to say the least.

[buizelbus]

2 hours ago, maege said:

So, I'm just going to put this out there. From listening to you and others on this forum, there is a large disconnect for the purpose you see the L-line serving compared to what Translink sees it as being and is designing it for. Translink and Surrey aim to use this line to shape Surrey into a "second downtown" and serve mainly as local, highly urban service, not as a more regional connection that seems to be more of the idea from most people here. Translink's view seems to be that these LRT lines will help them begin to shape Surrey now, so that about 15-25 years from now everyone will begin to see the initial result of Surrey as a "second downtown", with the fully developed result coming 30-50 years from now. 

I think it's fairly obvious I don't completely agree with Translink's view, but also that I don't see this project as a primarily regional connector, hence a view somewhere in between. 

Just a question, why can't you just use BRT on the L-Line. It can have similar capacities with tri-artics, and if the buses are at STC, you can start operating the service before the bus lanes are finished construction.

 

Also I'm ok with LRT but the only problem is the tram-like design and the fact that 104 Ave will be reduced to 1 lane per direction.

[maege]

2 hours ago, buizel10 said:

Just a question, why can't you just use BRT on the L-Line. It can have similar capacities with tri-artics, and if the buses are at STC, you can start operating the service before the bus lanes are finished construction.

Also I'm ok with LRT but the only problem is the tram-like design and the fact that 104 Ave will be reduced to 1 lane per direction.

Tri-articulated buses do not exist for use at present, bi-articulated is the largest. Capacity could be sufficed even with frequent enough current articulated buses for the next few decades. However, LRT still has potential capacity far beyond what any BRT can offer, if it is needed.

As far as BRT, you could operate BRT on the L-line. However, BRT does not have anywhere close to the same effect as rail on helping shape development and growth patterns. That would be the main reason why LRT was chosen (likely along with lower operational costs). LRT encourages development towards (and allows Surrey/Translink to shape future growth into) "transit-oriented developments"  that are geared specifically to be easily accessible by quality transit and helps minimize auto dependence. It is not really a logical thing, but rail systems, simply by being rail systems tend to attract greater ridership and development/growth than a similar bus or BRT service. My guess as to why is that rail has a better public perception than buses and, by simply being there and visibly different, is a constant reminder to people that it exists. Additionally, I think the idea of permanence may have some effect. That basically means that people don't think rail is going to disappear anytime soon due to the large investment that was made, whereas bus lanes for BRT can be merged back into the regular traffic lanes with relative ease.

In sum, I think the fact that LRT helps shape growth and make more growth transit and people oriented instead of auto oriented is the main reason why Translink chose LRT vs BRT.

Regarding 104 Ave, BRT would do the exact same thing in reducing 104 to 1 lane in each direction, so that's a completely null argument. 

[buizelbus]

1 hour ago, maege said:

Tri-articulated buses do not exist for use at present, bi-articulated is the largest. Capacity could be sufficed even with frequent enough current articulated buses for the next few decades. However, LRT still has potential capacity far beyond what any BRT can offer, if it is needed.

As far as BRT, you could operate BRT on the L-line. However, BRT does not have anywhere close to the same effect as rail on helping shape development and growth patterns. That would be the main reason why LRT was chosen (likely along with lower operational costs). LRT encourages development towards (and allows Surrey/Translink to shape future growth into) "transit-oriented developments"  that are geared specifically to be easily accessible by quality transit and helps minimize auto dependence. It is not really a logical thing, but rail systems, simply by being rail systems tend to attract greater ridership and development/growth than a similar bus or BRT service. My guess as to why is that rail has a better public perception than buses and, by simply being there and visibly different, is a constant reminder to people that it exists. Additionally, I think the idea of permanence may have some effect. That basically means that people don't think rail is going to disappear anytime soon due to the large investment that was made, whereas bus lanes for BRT can be merged back into the regular traffic lanes with relative ease.

In sum, I think the fact that LRT helps shape growth and make more growth transit and people oriented instead of auto oriented is the main reason why Translink chose LRT vs BRT.

Regarding 104 Ave, BRT would do the exact same thing in reducing 104 to 1 lane in each direction, so that's a completely null argument. 

I'm also concerned with BRT. Some other people have the plan to operate it in mixed traffic while they widen 104th when rezoned, but I strongly disagree. Unless you run SkyTrain through there.