Surrey Rapid Transit / Surrey Light rail

[maege]

19 hours ago, buizel10 said:

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.

If there are no bus lanes, then it isn't BRT. It would be a B-line, possibly with a few extra features like maybe all-door boarding or off-board fare payments. Without bus lanes (or a different traffic-separated service), there is the large issue of having serious delays and congestion issues within only 2-3 decades. 

As for widening 104 with re-zoning, that would be an insanely long time-frame (50+ years) to complete as many of those building will be there for countless decades to come, especially the newer ones. Better transit is needed within 10-20 years max so waiting 50+ isn't feasible, especially if you want to help shape development. 

Skytrain to Guildford was never considered in any of the alternatives, likely for 3 reasons:

1. The population served from Surrey Central to Guildford is smaller than both the Newton segment and the Langley-Fleetwood line. It doesn't really make sense to serve the smallest number of people with the most expensive option, unless all lines were to by Skytrain, in which case the cost would be very significantly higher.

2. It is only 3.6km from Surrey Central to Guildford. For such a short distance, the speed advantage of Skytrain compared to the current LRT design or B-line is relatively minimal, negating much of the potential benefit. Because of that, one way to view it is that the cost is being roughly doubled compared to current LRT design just so that cars have two lanes each direction instead of one. Framed in that manner, it seems like a very poor financial choice to pick Skytrain as there would be minimal benefit for significantly higher cost.

3. The last, but most important reason is that integrating a Guildford Skytrain into the rest of the system would be extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible. To avoid needing to demolish and completely re-build the track between Surrey Central and 104 Ave, you would somehow have to engineer a fly-over for the tracks inbound to Surrey central, which is made extremely difficult because the tracks curve west in that section. So you have to pull the fly-over further west than the curve, while elevating it so it can cross over the current tracks, then turn sharply back east towards Guildford. Basically, it would be an extremely expensive and complicated mess to fix. You may think they should implement something similar to Lougheed Station, but that couldn't work as there is no switch to accommodate such an option (having one line cross two tracks) until you get to the end of the line past King George Stn. To add such a new switch  around Surrey Central to enable a Lougheed like system would include completely rebuilding the existing trackways, and would still be extremely difficult then due to the current separate trackways around Surrey Central along with the curves on both sides, making such a solution difficult to impossible to implement. 

Because of these, Skytrain to Guildford is simply a no-go. Insane amounts of engineering would be necessary to make it even a potential option, but then the cost would be so ginormous that it would be a very poor financial decision to say the least.

Also with being such a short line, it wouldn't be worth having an elevated line (whether, Skytrain, monorail, or something else) separate from the rest of the system as then there would need to be a brand new OMC, just for that 3.6km, which would significantly raise the cost even more, not to mention the lack of decent place to put an OMC, especially if you want to avoid taking prime land that would otherwise be used for new growth and development along the route. 

So yeah, an elevated rail system on 104 Ave isn't really feasible. 

Edit: I was just thinking about elevated/aerial systems and a gondola would be much more feasible than elevated rail as costs are many times lower and there is no need for a separate OMC. Travel time would be similar to current B-line and LRT proposals as well (about 8.5 to 9 minutes from Surrey Central to Guildford) and expected capacity (2000 pphpd in 2041) could easily be met (they can scale to 6000+ pphpd). The downside is that it would not tie in nearly as well with the other Surrey lines (Surrey Central Station would likely be a level above the Skytrain platform). Also, I do not know how a gondola would compare to rail in helping shape future urban growth as there are not many systems that have been around long enough to provide that information.

Edix 2: A gondola system could actually work for the whole L line (it would likely be two separate lines but the transfer is only a few feet and with headway likely between 15 and 45 seconds, there would be almost no delay from the transfer) and would have similar riding times to the current LRT plan, but  faster overall trip times due to the extremely high frequency and no wait. The downsides would be the unknown of how beneficial it would be in helping shape growth and the fact that it wouldn't really make sense to extend the system to White Rock later on because of the slower line speed through farms compared to buses, whereas the extension would be an option with rail.

[M. Parsons]

On 2017-6-25 at 10:14 PM, Opal said:

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.

Please don't take Edmonton out of context. Issues with the signalling system and the resulting speed reductions and use of fall back systems to get the LRT line running were a large cause of the issues.The intersections involved in the traffic issues also had unique road layouts which certainly contributed to matters.

Kingsway/ 111 Ave: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.5577438,-113.5023766,367m/data=!3m1!1e3

Princess Elizabeth/ 106 St: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.5658766,-113.5040038,218m/data=!3m1!1e3

Looking at where the Surrey LRT could run I don't quite see the same road layouts. It seems the Surrey LRT is also following a bit of a different concept as well than Edmonton's Metro Line which uses traditional grade crossings to give full priority to LRT.

Finally, you say "not to mention crashes that will block the intersections". What crashes? This is just fear mongering. You make it sounds like it's on ongoing issue when I'm not aware of any to date, nearly 2 years after the line opened.

[Stormscape]

The Houston LRT has enough crashes to get compilation videos of them on YouTube, and it wouldn't be surprising to see that many here for the first while.

[maege]

8 hours ago, Stormscape said:

The Houston LRT has enough crashes to get compilation videos of them on YouTube, and it wouldn't be surprising to see that many here for the first while.

I'm not sure if you've ever been to Houston, but I have a number of times. It is a far different city than Vancouver, Massively sprawling and insanely high car dependence with horrible walkability in almost the whole city. That combined with the crazy wide roads (up to 26 lanes in places like this when combining the freeway and frontage roads) and car being completely king of public spaces, and it can't even compare to Vancouver. Additionally, many parts of the Houston LRT were designed especially poorly for Houston's urban conditions, contributing to the high amount of incidents. Places such as this one where separation is much worse than what Translink plans (only little plastic lane markers, not even a curb to prevent intrusion by cars), there is no specific turn signal or warning about the train, and the two tracks are on separate blocks, making it even more prone to accidents due to a greater area of vulnerability and the lack of "bulk" that might otherwise signal that there's a train running through and to be more careful.

Houston is absolutely nothing like Vancouver, both in terms of the city being completely different and in that the LRT design is so much worse even compared to Translink's current design. While there still may be incidents here, they will likely be nothing compared to the frequency that has occured in Houston due to the factors mentioned above. 

[Brando737]

Honestly, accidents can happen with any mode of transportation.  Yes I know SkyTrain would avoid any possibility of any vehicle related accident, but that doesn't mean it should be the option chosen just because of that.  LRT is the option they are going with and I don't believe there is any way of stopping it.  It's also a significantly cheaper option and less invasive as far as construction is concerned.  I personally think it's a great idea.  Surrey is trying to boost transit and adding a completely new method could possibly attract more people than SkyTrain might.  They can also build it allot faster which gets it up and running quicker.

Back to the accidents, people will just need to pay attention to signals on the road and vehicles around them.  And I'm sure the tracks will have some sort of curb to seperate them from regular traffic to avoid people just driving onto the tracks outside of intersections.  Also, I'm sure everything will be monitored by people watching cameras.  Not sure if this would be equipped, but I'm sure they could have a system that will detect vehicle entry into stations and an alarm could be triggered some how if it's not a train or expected maintenance vehicle.  I'm sure LRT will be a great option for Surrey in general.

[cprted]

People seem to think this thing is going to be wrecking with cars left, right and centre ... will collisions occur? Of course they will: That is inevitable. However I have trouble with the carnage that STFS et al are predicting. I'd be curious to know, how many service interruptions the C-Train had last year due to Vehicle-LRT collisions and what the average duration of the interruption was. 

[maege]

1 hour ago, cprted said:

People seem to think this thing is going to be wrecking with cars left, right and centre ... will collisions occur? Of course they will: That is inevitable. However I have trouble with the carnage that STFS et al are predicting. I'd be curious to know, how many service interruptions the C-Train had last year due to Vehicle-LRT collisions and what the average duration of the interruption was. 

I'll add some numbers to this topic. I haven't been able to find much as far as accident statistics from transit agencies, but Trimet (Portland's transit system) publishes "MAX Collisions per 100,000 miles" (chart ~2/3's down the page) - MAX being the LRT system - which shows the total number of collisions including pedestrians, vehicles, injury and not, damage and not. So it includes basically everything, whether there is any injury or damage, or none at all, with most of them being non-injury, and non-damage incidents. They seem to average around 1.7-1.8 collisions (I'll round up to 2 to make it easier) per 100,000 miles (~160,000km) over the course of a year, with more occurring during the winter. I can't seem to find the more detailed breakdown I had seen before, but hovering over Nov 2015 on the chart gives us 2 vehicle accidents, 2 pedestrian injuries, 1 pedestrian fatality, and 8 non-injury minor collisions. That seems fairly close to what I had found previously, somewhere between a 2:1 and 1:1 ratio of non-injury incidents compared to combined pedestrian injury and vehicle incidents. Note that MAX uses everything from running in mixed-traffic with cars to being separated by a curb to some areas with more substantial fencing or other separation. Because it is so diverse, having some areas with more protection and some areas with less compared to what Translink is proposing, I would think their numbers would translate fairly accurately to Surrey.

Let's calculate that to numbers for the L line:

The L line is ~10km, and there will be an average of 30 days in a month with trains operating about 20 hours per day, giving us about 600 hours of line operation per month. Running trains every 5 minutes (12 trains per hour in each direction) during all 600 operational hours would give us ~7200 runs of the line in each direction per month, or 14,400 total. Multiply that by 10km and we have 144,000km per month of train operation. To make it easy, let's round that up to 160,000km, which would give us ~2 collisions per month total. Using the rough ratio from Trimet, it would be expected to see about .25 vehicle accidents per month (aka 1 vehicle accident every 4 months, or about 3-4 per year), .3-1 pedestrian injury per month, and 1-1.5 non-injury "minor" accidents per month.

Of course, the trains, with not run every 5 minutes for all 20 hours, and that will reduce overall distance travelled, and likely reduce the number of collisions per month due to the reduced train km travelled. However, I think these numbers represent a good baseline of what to expect during a given month for the first year, as I wouldn't be surprised if the collisions were somewhat above the 2 per 160,000km, but within that monthly range listed above, due to higher than realistic frequency and train km numbers that I calculated.

As far as delays, I can't say for certain, but shown on the same page linked above, on-time performance for MAX has average about 85% over the last year. For comparison, Skytrain usually runs about 95%. Note that the delays are for anything from train malfunction to passengers holding doors, to debris in the tracks to people on the tracks, etc. MAX has drivers that can cause delays in addition to the similar problems as Skytrain, so it is hard to determine exactly how much of an effect accidents/collisions had. 

[nname]

5 hours ago, Brando737 said:

It's also a significantly cheaper option and less invasive as far as construction is concerned.  I personally think it's a great idea.  Surrey is trying to boost transit and adding a completely new method could possibly attract more people than SkyTrain might.  They can also build it allot faster which gets it up and running quicker.

It is just slightly cheaper (it is actually expensive per km than Evergreen extension, I believe) and more evasive (it will require more road space to build the entire thing at-grade, rather than just columns). According to TransLink's study, two lines of LRT will attract much less new transit ridership than just one line of SkyTrain, due to the longer travel time and extra transfer. The slowest part for the entire construction process is funding. After that, it will take "3-4 years" to construct the LRT vs. "4 years" to construct SkyTrain...

[nname]

1 hour ago, maege said:

The L line is ~10km, and there will be an average of 30 days in a month with trains operating about 20 hours per day, giving us about 600 hours of line operation per month. Running trains every 5 minutes (12 trains per hour in each direction) during all 600 operational hours would give us ~7200 runs of the line in each direction per month, or 14,400 total. Multiply that by 10km and we have 144,000km per month of train operation. To make it easy, let's round that up to 160,000km, which would give us ~2 collisions per month total. Using the rough ratio from Trimet, it would be expected to see about .25 vehicle accidents per month (aka 1 vehicle accident every 4 months, or about 3-4 per year), .3-1 pedestrian injury per month, and 1-1.5 non-injury "minor" accidents per month.

Of course, the trains, with not run every 5 minutes for all 20 hours, and that will reduce overall distance travelled, and likely reduce the number of collisions per month due to the reduced train km travelled. However, I think these numbers represent a good baseline of what to expect during a given month for the first year, as I wouldn't be surprised if the collisions were somewhat above the 2 per 160,000km, but within that monthly range listed above, due to higher than realistic frequency and train km numbers that I calculated.

And that service km seems so tiny compared to Expo and Millennium Line, which was scheduled to have 53,837,212 km of service in 2017... I guess, if the LRT line have about the same length and same service as Expo and Millennium Line, it would have about 336 collisions a year?

 

1 hour ago, maege said:

As far as delays, I can't say for certain, but shown on the same page linked above, on-time performance for MAX has average about 85% over the last year. For comparison, Skytrain usually runs about 95%. Note that the delays are for anything from train malfunction to passengers holding doors, to debris in the tracks to people on the tracks, etc. MAX has drivers that can cause delays in addition to the similar problems as Skytrain, so it is hard to determine exactly how much of an effect accidents/collisions had. 

This is actually not an apple-to-apple comparison... SkyTrain is considered "on-time" if it is less than 3min late; For MAX, it's 5min.

 

[M. Parsons]

20 minutes ago, Opal said:

I'm not talking just about the new Metro Line.  There are lots of crashes with LRT compared to Skytrain/subway:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/lrt-shut-down-after-crash-with-cyclist-1.3245450

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/2-killed-by-edmonton-lrt-train-id-d-1.883854

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/person-struck-and-killed-by-train-at-coliseum-lrt-station-1.2524901

And while this one doesn't involve the LRT itself, it is affected by it and is very recent: http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/03/26/police-investigating-serious-three-car-collision-at-lrt-crossing-near-66-street.

Your original post clearly referenced just the Metro line. Regardless, you then supplied 3 examples over a 7 year period dating back to 2010. One was a suicide (which I'm sure happens on the Skytrain too). The other 2 were pedestrian incidents as well. I guess unless you want to classify a bike as a vehicle. Too be sure, MVA vs. LRT collisions do happen in Edmonton. I'm aware of two minor vehicle collisons on the Capital Line in the last 10 years, as well as 4 or 5 wire down incidents and 2-3 longer duration signalling issues on the Metro line.

Back to my main point, if you're going to reference other cities, make sure you have your facts straight.

[maege]

6 hours ago, nname said:

It is just slightly cheaper (it is actually expensive per km than Evergreen extension, I believe) and more evasive (it will require more road space to build the entire thing at-grade, rather than just columns). According to TransLink's study, two lines of LRT will attract much less new transit ridership than just one line of SkyTrain, due to the longer travel time and extra transfer.

Let's have some facts rather than thoughts and beliefs. Here is Translink's "Alternatives Evaluation" which provides the most detailed information available for the Surrey LRT. I shall be referring to portions of this document as "AE" or "the AE" from here on. 

For the Evergreen Extension, the capital cost was $1.43 Billion (Note the contributions only add up to $1.41 billion because they do not include the ~$30 million contributed later in the project for Lincoln Station) and is 11km long with 7 stations, including Lougheed.  That comes out to $130 million per km. And that's with (relatively) very few stations. By comparison, the capital costs for Surrey, found on Page 72 of the AE, are shown for the L line in LRT 4 to be $910 million for 10.8km and 11 stations. That $910 million seems to include some items that are not exactly "capital costs" so here is the breakdown:

- $556 million for construction costs

- $146 million for initial vehicles and OMC costs

- $83 million for "Expansion Vehicles and Related OMC costs" with a note saying "Expansion of fleet assumed 10 and 20 years after opening year, to increase frequency"

- $47 million for "Net ROW costs"

- $82 million for "Real Inflation"

Note the costs add up to $914 million likely due to rounding. To get a direct comparison for capital costs, we should exclude "Real inflation" as we are not inflation adjusting the Evergreen Extension and the AE was published in 2012, during Evergreen Extension construction, so current costs then are directly comparable to Evergreen costs without inflation adjustments for either. Additionally, the "Expansion" costs are not part of the initial capital costs, and were not included for the Evergreen Extension, so should not be included for the comparison. 

Taking those adjustments into account, $914 million less the inflation and expansion costs, leave us with $749 million in directly comparable capital costs vs the $1.43 billion for the Evergreen Extension. $749 million over 10.8km comes to ~$69.3 million per km, or 53.3% of the per km cost of the Evergreen Extension. If you  think a 47.7% reduction in costs is "slightly cheaper", that's on you, but a 47.7% discount for everyone else is massive. And that is not to mention the fact that the Surrey L line has 4 more stations, which make up very significant portions of the capital costs.

If we are to compare like-to-like for Surrey specifically, then we would be looking at LRT 5A and RRT 1A as they both provide BRT on the L line continuing to White Rock and LRT and Skytrain, respectively, on the Langley Line. Again on Page 72 of the AE, total capital costs are listed at $1.68 billion for LRT 5A compared to $2.22 billion for LRT 1A. However, when we take into account only the construction costs for each technology on the Langley line, the initial vehicle and related OMC costs, and the net ROW costs (basically only looking at LRT/Skytrain initial capital costs and excluding the BRT and talking pre-inflation numbers), the Langley Line would cost $1.012 billion with LRT compared to $1.692 billion for Skytrain. For the Langley Line, LRT costs 40.2% less than Skytrain, or to put it another way, Skytrain costs 67% more than LRT on the Langley line. That's a very significant difference. 

As for width, I will refer you back to this post I wrote earlier. Yes, LRT uses somewhat more width than Skytrain, but that is only 3-4m. Additionally, BRT, which is what S4S proposes for the L line, uses the same to somewhat more width than LRT depending on the setup. 

I think there should be some clarity about ridership estimates: they are ALWAYS wrong. Just about any knowledgeable transit planner will confirm that. It is impossible to accurately predict ridership numbers. They can be a helpful in providing a possible idea of what ridership may look like, but they are always inaccurate, sometimes horribly so. The number I believe you are referring to is the "New Regional Daily Transit Trips (Weekday Average, 2020-2049)" on Page xvi of the AE in which they estimated that RRT1 would have approximately 17,000 vs 12,000 for LRT1. That number goes beyond simply trying to predict ridership for the new lines and encompasses all Surrey transit ridership on any mode that could somehow be attributed to the new line. It provides a good insight into how the people creating these estimates view the different technologies (hint they seem to think BRT alone would have somewhat higher ridership than LRT), and may be somewhat helpful in providing a general idea of what may happen. But this number is even more speculative than just trying to predict ridership for a single line due to the enormous number of variables and unknowns. While I do accept that Skytrain would likely have somewhat higher ridership than LRT for a particular line (specifically the Fraser Hwy), I urge everyone to take all ridership estimates with a grain of salt as they always will be wrong, and quite often to a fairly large degree. Here is a decent paper if anyone wants to read more on some meta-analysis of ridership predictions.

Lastly, I have covered the transfer thing numerous times. The massive majority of peoples trips are intra-Surrey and would have no need to go on Skytrain. The transfer, while possibly being a slight inconvenience for some people (mainly commuters I would imagine), it does not have an impact on the massive majority of people's trips. 

6 hours ago, nname said:

And that service km seems so tiny compared to Expo and Millennium Line, which was scheduled to have 53,837,212 km of service in 2017... I guess, if the LRT line have about the same length and same service as Expo and Millennium Line, it would have about 336 collisions a year?

With the capacity and frequency of the Expo line at-grade crossings are not feasible. Additionally with the headways being so small during peak hours, automated systems are needed. At that point, the issue wouldn't be collisions (it's arguable that there may be less due to much higher awareness because of the frequency, but this is all a very theoretical argument that serves zero purpose), but the inability of traffic to cross the intersection due to the very high frequency during peak periods. No one here is suggesting that either the Expo or Millennium lines should be replaced with an at-grade system (or that there will be an at-grade system with the same level of ridership as the Expo/Millennium lines), so I won't give this thought experiment any more time. 

6 hours ago, nname said:

This is actually not an apple-to-apple comparison... SkyTrain is considered "on-time" if it is less than 3min late; For MAX, it's 5min.

That's fair, I didn't consider those potential differences. I was mainly attempting to give a somewhat relatable comparison, even though it didn't answer the posed question of how much time accidents would cause in delays, and as noted for other reasons, it not an "apples-to-apples" comparison.

[maege]

2 hours ago, Opal said:

I'm not talking just about the new Metro Line.  There are lots of crashes with LRT compared to Skytrain/subway:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/lrt-shut-down-after-crash-with-cyclist-1.3245450

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/2-killed-by-edmonton-lrt-train-id-d-1.883854

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/person-struck-and-killed-by-train-at-coliseum-lrt-station-1.2524901

And while this one doesn't involve the LRT itself, it is affected by it and is very recent: http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/03/26/police-investigating-serious-three-car-collision-at-lrt-crossing-near-66-street

I didn't even search the C-Train (edit I did later, see below).  I specifically remember one bad one in the news at a level crossing a number of years ago (maybe 2010?).  I'm not going to bother looking it up.

Exactly my point.  I was just about to mention all the videos on YouTube when I saw this post.

Statistics and hard numbers are very helpful. A few anecdotes are not. I could pull up all the examples of how Rail for the Valley (more or less the anithesis of Skytrain for Surrey) thinks Skytrain is the worst thing in existence and how horrible all the incidents involving it are, but that is neither useful, nor helpful (nor do I agree with their view of Skytrain). Actual numbers and statistics from valid sources are much more prudent.

2 hours ago, Opal said:

I completely understand this, but it's the nature of LRT that caused this.  If you had a raised guideway or a subway, you wouldn't have this problem.

Signalling issues would affect all technologies, not matter if they are elevated, at-grade, or tunnelled. The difference would be in how it would affect a given system. If/when Skytrain has signalling issues, for example, trains just couldn't run due to the fully automated nature of them needed a properly working signalling system. Each train could possibly be manned with a driver and operate at reduced speeds in such an event, depending on what the signalling issue was, but that would then be the exact same thing as what the LRT did. The vehicle traffic issues may not be the same, due to the nature of at-grade vs grade separation, but with the grade separation, if the system is automated like Skytrain, the system may not work at all depending on the exact problem, which would be a much larger issue in my opinion.

2 hours ago, Opal said:

Lots of crashes/disruptions.  I just googled it and tonnes came up...  Drivers are in a hurry and will try to "beat" the trains.  Bad things will happen.  Why not just avoid creating these possible problems and better design the system so that the guideway is mostly elevated or completely separated?  This is one point that I have never understood with the pro-LRT people -- why we would purposely try to "improve" a transit system when you're making it worse by removing lanes of traffic and then plopping a train down the middle assuming no one will hit it.

Again, numbers and statistics are helpful, vague terms and anecdotes are not. As far as drivers trying to "beat the train", that is why I would like to see some form of intersection barrier in addition to traffic lights. Having railroad arms that come down sequentially, completely blocking the front side (from the driver's point of view) of the tracks first, then another set, at the back of the tracks, closing after allowing a second or two for any car that may have potentially snuck under the first set of arms before they closed, would prevent almost all of those potential accidents. 

A reserved right of way, no matter the technology, is an improvement over transit in mixed traffic, as it provides much less variable travel times, and much more reliability. Additionally, trains are much less likely to be involved in accidents than buses in mixed traffic, as shown by the Trimet numbers among others (Trimet train incidents occur at roughly half the rate per 100k miles compared to buses). Higher degrees of protection for LRT reduce accidents even further. I have not seen any numbers that would suggest reducing the number of lanes has any effect on the frequency of accidents with LRT. If you have some numbers, then great, let's have a discussion, otherwise.......

As far as reducing lanes in general, in relation to transit and urban development, reducing the number of lanes for general vehicles often encourages higher use of alternative transportation methods, whether it be walking, bike, transit, or something else. It can often be controversial in a local area, but most of the time, if done with the proper planning, creates the desired change of less single-person car use.

1 hour ago, M. Parsons said:

One was a suicide (which I'm sure happens on the Skytrain too).

Yes, they do. According to this article, the number of Skytrain deaths is 75 from opening to 2015, most of which were deemed suicide. 

[nname]

3 hours ago, maege said:

Let's have some facts rather than thoughts and beliefs. Here is Translink's "Alternatives Evaluation" which provides the most detailed information available for the Surrey LRT. I shall be referring to portions of this document as "AE" or "the AE" from here on. 

For the Evergreen Extension, the capital cost was $1.43 Billion (Note the contributions only add up to $1.41 billion because they do not include the ~$30 million contributed later in the project for Lincoln Station) and is 11km long with 7 stations, including Lougheed.  That comes out to $130 million per km. And that's with (relatively) very few stations. By comparison, the capital costs for Surrey, found on Page 72 of the AE, are shown for the L line in LRT 4 to be $910 million for 10.8km and 11 stations. That $910 million seems to include some items that are not exactly "capital costs" so here is the breakdown:

  [ ... ]

I was actually only compare the construction cost of both projects.  For Evergreen, the contract was 889M as-spent (with a big chunk of them paid in 2016$ at substantial completion).  For Surrey L LRT, it's 556M in 2010$ according to AE, and that does not include OMC construction cost.

The $1.43B for Evergreen does include a whole lot of items that are not included in the LRT estimate.  I remember I had the full list before but can't seems to find them anymore (and TransLink really need to fix their site search!)... but, from my memory, the list contain things like consultation cost (include the ones TransLink already spent consulting Evergreen as LRT), related road works, bus loop construction, map and signage update across the region, and a huge contingency (something like 30%?) to ensure the project can never go over budget...  I remember it was announced that the Evergreen was "under budget", but I don't recall seeing the actual number...

Well, the AE is just a preliminary estimate of the cost of all alternatives, and words that both the Surrey and Broadway projects are going way over the estimate.  After all, TransLink asked for 5.5 Billions capital cost for phase 2 (if the 2.2B from federal was 40% of the cost).  Phase 2, I believe only contains the Surrey L line, Broadway to Arbutus, new Pattullo Bridge, some new buses and few millions for road and cycling spending (the Langley line is phase 3). Why on earth do they need that much if the L line is less than a billion, Broadway is less than 2 billions, and Pattullo is about a billion? Anyways, we wouldn't know the actual cost until the contract is signed so I guess it's premature to for me to say that.  But still, it's a very expensive project for that they're proposing and the projected benefit from the AE...

[maege]

10 hours ago, nname said:

I was actually only compare the construction cost of both projects.  For Evergreen, the contract was 889M as-spent (with a big chunk of them paid in 2016$ at substantial completion).  For Surrey L LRT, it's 556M in 2010$ according to AE, and that does not include OMC construction cost.

The $1.43B for Evergreen does include a whole lot of items that are not included in the LRT estimate.  I remember I had the full list before but can't seems to find them anymore (and TransLink really need to fix their site search!)... but, from my memory, the list contain things like consultation cost (include the ones TransLink already spent consulting Evergreen as LRT), related road works, bus loop construction, map and signage update across the region, and a huge contingency (something like 30%?) to ensure the project can never go over budget...  I remember it was announced that the Evergreen was "under budget", but I don't recall seeing the actual number...

Well let's look at just construction costs then: Total for just construction of the line was $922-$925 million (~$84 million per km). For the L line is is $556 million (~$51.5 million per km). That means that the Evergreen Extension costs for just the line (neither line including the OMC that was/will be built) is 63% higher than the Surrey LRT, or from the other way, Surrey LRT costs are 39% less than the Evergreen Extension. 

Let's actually include all comparable costs for a direct comparison now. For the Evergreen Extension, as noted in the document linked above, the costs are as follows:

Design Build Finance Contract (Design, Construction, Testing and Commissioning of the Line): $922-$925 million

Owner's Construction (Advance works (road widening, utility relocates) Station Plazas, Park and Ride facilities): $40-42 million

Vehicles: $101 million

Property: $160 million

This gives a total of $1.223-$1.228 billion ($111.18-$111.64 million per km.

Note that the fare gates and Compass/fare installation costs are not included in these numbers. 

Compare that to Surrey L line costs of $556 for construction, $146 for vehicles and OMC, and $47 million for Net ROW costs, for a total of  $749 million ($69.35 million per km). The number stay basically the same with the Evergreen line costing ~60-62% more than the Surrey L line, or alternately, the Surrey L line costing ~38% less than the Evergreen line. Still a very significant cost difference. The number I have used previously is that LRT costs about 40% less than Skytrain, and this figure holds true here. 

Additionally, note that I included a directly comparable figure with the Langley line in my previous post that showed similarly significant cost differences, so this isn't an anomaly for cost comparison.

Quote

the list contain things like consultation cost (include the ones TransLink already spent consulting Evergreen as LRT), related road works, bus loop construction, map and signage update across the region, and a huge contingency (something like 30%?)

I did not include the "Project Management and General" ($97-110 million) or the "TransLink In-Kind" ($46 million) costs in my calculations above, even though they are included in the Surrey numbers, as noted in Pages 69-71 of the AE:

Quote

Implementation Costs and Design/Cost Contingencies

On top of the subtotal for construction and vehicle costs, the following implementation costs were applied: Design 5%; and Project and Construction Management 29%.

Design and Cost Contingencies to allow for unknown and undefined cost items, and possible fluctuations in costs, have an allowance of 31 %.

For property, a cost contingency of 20% was applied on top of the property plus the relocation costs.

Also, those two costs for the Evergreen Extension plus the $40-42 million of "Owner's Construction" come to ~13.4%-14.7%% of the total budget, so your "something like 30%" is complete BS. If a project was ever spending 30% of it's costs on costs not directly for the construction or vehicles for such a project, you would have an absolute shit-show of a project. Note, however, that the "Owner's Construction" is construction directly related to construction for the Evergreen Extension, leaving only 9-10% of total project costs for management, consultation, fare installation, etc.

10 hours ago, nname said:

Well, the AE is just a preliminary estimate of the cost of all alternatives, and words that both the Surrey and Broadway projects are going way over the estimate.  After all, TransLink asked for 5.5 Billions capital cost for phase 2 (if the 2.2B from federal was 40% of the cost).  Phase 2, I believe only contains the Surrey L line, Broadway to Arbutus, new Pattullo Bridge, some new buses and few millions for road and cycling spending (the Langley line is phase 3). Why on earth do they need that much if the L line is less than a billion, Broadway is less than 2 billions, and Pattullo is about a billion? Anyways, we wouldn't know the actual cost until the contract is signed so I guess it's premature to for me to say that.  But still, it's a very expensive project for that they're proposing and the projected benefit from the AE...

Of course it is an estimate, and the business case (which should be out in the next few months) will provide more clarity and detail if there are any changes. The only mention of Surrey LRT cost increase I have found is this City of Surrey document giving a $2.6 billion figure, which does not go into any break-down at all, and could include City of Surrey road projects they are tying to the LRT such as 100 Ave expansion, 105A Ave, etc. From Translink, even at the latest consultation, the number mentioned is $2.2 billion.

The Broadway Line cost has increased significantly. Initially it was $3 billion to go all the way to UBC (and $1.5 billion to Arbutus), and now it is $2 billion just to Arbutus (from $250 million per km to $330 million per km). That is a 33% increase in costs and cause for serious concern, both from the cost increase and the cost per km perspectives. I haven't seen/found anything showing an increase in the Surrey LRT costs, so if you have something, share it, but at this point, the Broadway extension seems more concerning from a cost and cost increase perspective. 

If you have sources to back up the "way over the estimate" claim you make, provide them, otherwise please stop with the unsubstantiated claims as they are of no use.

That said, I expect a 5-20% cost increase in both projects when the business case in finalized, due to inflation since the original numbers were created and the more specific detail level. That would be relatively normal and comparable to what has been seen with the Evergreen Line, and other projects in North America.

As for Phase 2, it includes the Broadway extension, Surrey LRT, Pattullo Replacement, more rail cars and station upgrades, continued service expansion, and other road, cycling and walking improvements. Costs listed here on Pages 24-25 with other number from before show $910 million for Newton-Guildford LRT (using LRT4 numbers), $1.98 billion for Broadway extension and $980 million for Pattullo replacement, $99.8 million for MRN, cycling and walking improvements, $11.8 million for the Scott Rd and 430 B-lines, for a total of $3.98 billion. There is also $17.3 million for two upgraded transit exchanges ($52 million total for 13 exchange upgrades, spread equally over 10 years), $150 million for 43 new Skytrain cars (the number says 86 cars, including Broadway extension, which initially had 89 cars for all the way to UBC, so I took half of the 86 cars since Arbutus is just under half the distance to UBC, at the average cost of $3.5 million for the amount not included in the Broadway extension costs), $272.5 million for Skytrain and Canada Line station upgrades ($817.4 million in total upgrades over the plan, divided equally by 3 phases since they are not otherwise broken down), $69 million for a 6% increase in bus service and $4.64 million for a 7% Handydart increase. That brings the total cost to $4.5 billion of the $5.5 billion total, not including any Langley line work, even though the 10 Year Vision Dashboard has "pre-construction" on the Langley line and "Surrey Light Rail", which is usually to encompass the whole project, is included here. The articles I have read regarding the $2.2 billion funding refer to the "Surrey LRT" and the two lines it has with ~26-27km of total track, which would seem to indicate the full project is included in the funding, not just the first line. If that is the case, that would bring the total to roughly the $5.5 billion (note it may be slightly off due to rounding).

[Translink69]

I agree that crashes and accidents won't happen as often as people say they will, but have people forgotten our region's large population of terrible drivers,  who think that their 70k BMW SUV will protect them from any accidents?

[maege]

13 hours ago, Translink69 said:

I agree that crashes and accidents won't happen as often as people say they will, but have people forgotten our region's large population of terrible drivers,  who think that their 70k BMW SUV will protect them from any accidents?

I don't know why there is the assumption that Vancouver has terrible drivers (relative to other places anyway), but it doesn't seem accurate from what I have experienced living in numerous places across the US and Canada (and driving across most of both countries at least once). Compared to most places, drivers seem much better here, something I would partly attribute to the graduated licensing system and having a much greater diversity and public awareness of other transportation options (walking, cycling, transit). Some of the worst places I've been for drivers are Houston and Dallas in Texas, possibly due to the very minimal licensing requirements and highly car-dependant culture. 

[Express691]

http://globalnews.ca/video/3754425/surrey-mayor-urges-quick-action-on-lrt

News Clip on Global BC: Hepner pushes BC Gov't and T/L to 'Hurry Up' on LRT decision
Ft: 8800GTX

[Express691]

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/board_minutes_and_reports/2017/Dec/20171214_open_board_meeting_report.pdf 

Sorting these notes out into the different threads:

1) Phase 3 consultations to take place February 2018
2) Environmental and community impacts of the project will be one of the main discussions for the board meeting (See page 104 for details).

[8010]

I must say that I find it amusing that a few people have the say as to what should be improved on the transit system that they never use but is used by over a million people every year. If the LRT proposal was consulted with the public first (in a proper way that is) the project would be scrapped right away. Any criticism on this project is falling on deaf ears and TransLink continues to label this as a rapid transit project even though the City of Surrey says that this line is not intended to be fast, which is the opposite of what rapid transit should be. The Expo Line was always intended to continue down Fraser Highway to Langley so that LRT line makes no sense. And there's nothing wrong with the current 96 B-Line, so once the Millennium Line is extended to Arbutus some of the trips and buses used on the 99 can be shifted over to the 96 to improve frequency, and since TransLink is making every B-Line route more like BRT the 96 will basically have the same features as an LRT without having as much impact to roads as Light Rail will. There is also no exact location as to where the OMC will be going except the vague "somewhere near Newton Exchange". I will say that the amount of delays that are projected for the LRT are a bit exaggrated, but there's still not much of a business case with a slow rapid transit route that increases congestion and is not as environmentally friendly as they're claiming it to be, so the project has a very low possibility of approval by the Provincial government anyway. All funding for the Light Rail project should be shifted over to the Expo Line extension to Langley, which could be opened at the very end of Phase 2 instead of sometime in Phase 3. Then TransLink can focus on other areas that are in need if rapid transit options such as SkyTrain extensions or more B-Line routes, or even the SFU gondola.

That's all for my thoughts on this whole LRT catastrophe that's been going on for the last couple of years or so.

[maege]

6 hours ago, 8010 said:

I must say that I find it amusing that a few people have the say as to what should be improved on the transit system that they never use but is used by over a million people every year. If the LRT proposal was consulted with the public first (in a proper way that is) the project would be scrapped right away. Any criticism on this project is falling on deaf ears and TransLink continues to label this as a rapid transit project even though the City of Surrey says that this line is not intended to be fast, which is the opposite of what rapid transit should be. The Expo Line was always intended to continue down Fraser Highway to Langley so that LRT line makes no sense. And there's nothing wrong with the current 96 B-Line, so once the Millennium Line is extended to Arbutus some of the trips and buses used on the 99 can be shifted over to the 96 to improve frequency, and since TransLink is making every B-Line route more like BRT the 96 will basically have the same features as an LRT without having as much impact to roads as Light Rail will. There is also no exact location as to where the OMC will be going except the vague "somewhere near Newton Exchange". I will say that the amount of delays that are projected for the LRT are a bit exaggrated, but there's still not much of a business case with a slow rapid transit route that increases congestion and is not as environmentally friendly as they're claiming it to be, so the project has a very low possibility of approval by the Provincial government anyway. All funding for the Light Rail project should be shifted over to the Expo Line extension to Langley, which could be opened at the very end of Phase 2 instead of sometime in Phase 3. Then TransLink can focus on other areas that are in need if rapid transit options such as SkyTrain extensions or more B-Line routes, or even the SFU gondola.

That's all for my thoughts on this whole LRT catastrophe that's been going on for the last couple of years or so.

Let me first caveat my statements below by stating that I do agree that the current design is not ideal, and there should be some changes. That said, even though many have been calling it a "catastrophe" or "failure" before it's even built, I expect that after it opens, we will find that it works just fine for a transit line. There will probably be some minor issues , but 2 year after opening, it will more or less be functioning just fine. 

I definitely agree that there should be more public involvement in governmental and quasi-governmental decisions, but at the same time, we need to be careful to make sure that input is informed, with as much background and knowledge as possible. Otherwise there is a much greater risk of said input being either being ignored or turning everything into a hugely expensive mistake.

The Surrey LRT won't be slow. There is nothing faster in recent history along those corridors. Yes, it won't be quite as fast as Skytrain, but it will still be faster than anything existing there recently.

I don't remember ever seeing any plans for the Expo line to continue to Langley, aside from options as part of the current Surrey project. Could you point me to those prior plans?

The project has already been approved and funded by the province, and they have the current business case.

Two last notes I would like to throw:

The vast majority of trips that would use a Fraser Hwy line are within Langley and Surrey, not across the river. 

A skytrain ride from Langley to downtown is a long and not very efficient commute. A regional train from Pacific Central Station (or potentially Waterfront) to Langley via the CN tracks through Vancouver and Burnaby, before crossing a rail bridge/tunnel to Surrey and following the SRY tracks from there (via Scott Rd Stn and Newton Exchange) to Langley should be implemented to serve the longer trips from the southern portion of Surrey and Langley, providing much faster and convenient service for those people.

[8010]

18 hours ago, maege said:

Let me first caveat my statements below by stating that I do agree that the current design is not ideal, and there should be some changes. That said, even though many have been calling it a "catastrophe" or "failure" before it's even built, I expect that after it opens, we will find that it works just fine for a transit line. There will probably be some minor issues , but 2 year after opening, it will more or less be functioning just fine. 

I definitely agree that there should be more public involvement in governmental and quasi-governmental decisions, but at the same time, we need to be careful to make sure that input is informed, with as much background and knowledge as possible. Otherwise there is a much greater risk of said input being either being ignored or turning everything into a hugely expensive mistake.

The Surrey LRT won't be slow. There is nothing faster in recent history along those corridors. Yes, it won't be quite as fast as Skytrain, but it will still be faster than anything existing there recently.

I don't remember ever seeing any plans for the Expo line to continue to Langley, aside from options as part of the current Surrey project. Could you point me to those prior plans?

The project has already been approved and funded by the province, and they have the current business case.

Two last notes I would like to throw:

The vast majority of trips that would use a Fraser Hwy line are within Langley and Surrey, not across the river. 

A skytrain ride from Langley to downtown is a long and not very efficient commute. A regional train from Pacific Central Station (or potentially Waterfront) to Langley via the CN tracks through Vancouver and Burnaby, before crossing a rail bridge/tunnel to Surrey and following the SRY tracks from there (via Scott Rd Stn and Newton Exchange) to Langley should be implemented to serve the longer trips from the southern portion of Surrey and Langley, providing much faster and convenient service for those people.

I'm not saying the line won't work, I'm just saying that it's a waste of money when the 96 is nowhere near capacity and the line will basically become the 96 on rails. I think in the first month or so delays can be expected as drivers in Metro Van are typically pretty bad and will probably have a hard time understanding the LRT. When the BRT-like improvements are made to all the B-Line routes in the coming years the 96 will pretty much have the same speed as a Light Rail line which will defeat the "less travel time" purpose that is being so proudly advertised. Could SkyTrain go to Newton? Not really as it would be pretty stupid and there's no justification in doing so, so LRT is the next best thing if it's implemented correctly, and judging by the conceptual designs of the Light Rail, it won't be, which is a shame as there is nothing wrong with the technology. LRT gets a bad reputation due to other cities around the world doing a crap job of implementing Light Rail to their transit and road networks.

As with consultation, I believe that TransLink should have presented the top 3-5 options and tell the public to pick one.

I can't remember where I read it but if you look at how the guideway is positioned past King George Station you can see that an Expo Line extension along Fraser Highway was at least put into consideration, kinda like how the Millennium Line's guideway past VCC-Clark Station was built for a future extension going West.

I don't believe Phase 2 has been fully funded yet due to the business cases but I know that TransLink and the Provincial government has come up with a way to secure the remaining funding. Also the Provincial government could just say no to the business case, which is probably unlikely at this point but we'll have to wait and see.

I don't think a SkyTrain trip from Waterfront to Langley is any longer than 60 minutes, which isn't that bad since you're almost going from one side of the region to the other, and I would honestly go to Langley more often if the SkyTrain extended out there, but I do see your point. Regional rail to Langley sounds nice and hopefully is implemented one day, but my only problem with that is if TransLink will have different fare prices like the West Coast Express, which would make me rather go by SkyTrain and then bus to Langley as it's cheaper.

(When I used "catastrophe" in my last post I meant that this whole argument has sort of blown out of proportion a bit)

[8010]

If the LRT doesn't break ground by November this year whoever the new mayor is could shut the project down as Hepner isn't seeking re-election in the 2018 election. TransLink wants the Light Rail line up and running in 2024, which may or may not happen. We'll have to see what happens in the coming months.

[maege]

3 minutes ago, 8010 said:

If the LRT doesn't break ground by November this year whoever the new mayor is could shut the project down as Hepner isn't seeking re-election in the 2018 election. TransLink wants the Light Rail line up and running in 2024, which may or may not happen. We'll have to see what happens in the coming months.

It's a Translink project, not a City of Surrey project. There is already a MOU signed. It's very difficult to stop a project that you don't control and have already signed and agreement/contract for.

[8010]

4 minutes ago, maege said:

It's a Translink project, not a City of Surrey project. There is already a MOU signed. It's very difficult to stop a project that you don't control and have already signed and agreement/contract for.

Just because an MoU is signed doesn't mean that Surrey is legally bound to have the Light Rail line constructed, yet. The MoU is currently in place so that Surrey does become legally bound once funding is secured and the business case is approved and some legal agreement is made between the city and TransLink.

[maege]

1 hour ago, 8010 said:

Just because an MoU is signed doesn't mean that Surrey is legally bound to have the Light Rail line constructed, yet. The MoU is currently in place so that Surrey does become legally bound once funding is secured and the business case is approved and some legal agreement is made between the city and TransLink.

It is funded, both local, provincial and federal:

http://buzzer.translink.ca/2018/03/announcing-one-of-the-largest-transportation-investments-in-metro-vancouver-history/

https://www.translink.ca/About-Us/Media/2018/March/Mayors-approve-largest-transit-and-transportation-investment-in-Metro-Vancouver-history.aspx

Business cases just need to be made public, internally at each level, they have access the updated/final business case. With much pre-construction already being completed, there probably is an official agreement in place with Surrey already, I'm just too lazy to search and find it right now.