Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Metro-One]

The argument is between grade separation and non grade separation.

In North America, 99% of the time LRT = at grade interactions for at least portions of any given line.

Therefore LRT has become synonymous with a lower quality at grade running system.

[chowhou]

For Translink BRT is the new LRT. Love it or hate it, it has almost all of the problems but also almost all of the benefits at a lower cost.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The argument is between grade separation and non grade separation.

Exactly. You could build a grade-separated road and run bus trains on it and it would be pretty similar to Skytrain (apart from the automation).

Grade separation gives you two big wins: avoiding gridlock and allowing for the use of automation, which allows for increased frequencies at pretty much no increased cost. Frequency is almost as big a factor as travel time in making a transit system attractive to use.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Exactly. You could build a grade-separated road and run bus trains on it and it would be pretty similar to Skytrain (apart from the automation).

Grade separation gives you two big wins: avoiding gridlock and allowing for the use of automation, which allows for increased frequencies at pretty much no increased cost. Frequency is almost as big a factor as travel time in making a transit system attractive to use.

They did an elevated BRT Trolleybus system in Mexico City.. it's pretty neat..

https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/mexico-city-an-elevated-brt-trolleybus/

Ron.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The argument is between grade separation and non grade separation.

Originally Posted by chowhou

For Translink BRT is the new LRT. Love it or hate it, it has almost all of the problems but also almost all of the benefits at a lower cost.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Exactly. You could build a grade-separated road and run bus trains on it and it would be pretty similar to Skytrain (apart from the automation).

Grade separation gives you two big wins: avoiding gridlock and allowing for the use of automation, which allows for increased frequencies at pretty much no increased cost. Frequency is almost as big a factor as travel time in making a transit system attractive to use.

Yes, all this seems very valid. As such, couldn't they builda large part of the (long) Langley Expo Line extension that way? Grade separated? Underground would IMHO be more aesthetic - and maybe cheaper - than an elevated guideway. (I'll let the engineers and experts answer that question)

[WarrenC12]

Seattle's Link LRT is probably a good compromise. I'd bet the cost per km is cheaper than Skytrain.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Seattle's Link LRT is probably a good compromise. I'd bet the cost per km is cheaper than Skytrain.

It's always difficult to make direct comparisons between projects as the scope, timing and construction considerations are always different. The Lynnwood extension opened last year, and cost $3.1bn US, for 4 stations and 8.5 miles(13.7km) of track. That's $4.26bn CA at today's exchange rate.

The next phase of expansion is the West Seattle link extension. That's only 4.1 miles (6.6km), but is now budgeted at $7.1bn US ($10bn CA), and that's not yet firm - it could end up costing more.

Langley is now expected to cost $6bn CA for 16 km and 8 stations. It looks like a comparative bargain.

The LRT construction is also facing similar delay as the Broadway extension - their current extension in Redmond was due to be completed in 2023, and is now not opening until 2025.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's always difficult to make direct comparisons between projects as the scope, timing and construction considerations are always different. The Lynnwood extension opened last year, and cost $3.1bn US, for 4 stations and 8.5 miles(13.7km) of track. That's $4.26bn CA at today's exchange rate.

The next phase of expansion is the West Seattle link extension. That's only 4.1 miles (6.6km), but is now budgeted at $7.1bn US ($10bn CA), and that's not yet firm - it could end up costing more.

Langley is now expected to cost $6bn CA for 16 km and 8 stations. It looks like a comparative bargain.

The LRT construction is also facing similar delay as the Broadway extension - their current extension in Redmond was due to be completed in 2023, and is now not opening until 2025.

Seattle is playing catch-up for sure. One place they have Vancouver solidly beat is funding. Measures were approved for future lines for the next 10-15 years.

West Link has been delayed for sure, but needs to cross the Lake at water level, pretty complex IMO.

They have 3 extensions under real construction, 2 opening in 2025 and 1 in 2026. At that time they will exceed Skytrain in terms of miles of track, and likely we'll never catch up.

They started ~20 years behind Vancouver and caught up and will beat us in their first 25 or so. Not in ridership of course, but the vision feels a lot more solid.

Re: bolded parts, I can't see how that's a deal. And I'll eat my hat if the Langley extension doesn't increase before all is said and done.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Metro Seattle's a full third bigger than Vancouver, and Washington has 2x BC's GDP. The fact that it's taking so long to get ahead of BC transit-wise reflects as badly on them as it does us.

[BaddieB]

There are three factors why Vancouver has better transit than Seattle.
1. For one, Seattle is very low density and spread out, whereas Vancouver has a Metro core (Downtown + Broadway) whose density is comparable to European cities, with suburbs being quite delineated between compact SFH and farmland. Seattle has more of a gradient where the line between suburbs and rural is very blurred.
2. Vancouver's car infrastructure is stuck in the pre WW2 era because of highway revolts, and building new ones through populated areas is impossible because of expensive land.
3. Vancouver has less greenfield land to grow on, so a lot of development is infill. Infill developers want to build in high demand areas, and those are usually near Skytrain. This means politicians build Skytrains primarily for their developer friends, and secondarily for the public. This is a good thing though, as business and public interest is aligned.

[madog222]

Let’s get this thread back on topic.

[Jimbo604]

Originally Posted by Lexus

And here is a fresh video


• Video Link

Poor Willowbrook Whitespot seen @ 3m 45s. It was there a long time, I believe, before being on the spot of the future Willowbrook [mall] station.

[adrianroam95]

It looks like major work is starting at the future Bakerview-166 St Station, with drilling piles for foundations beginning next month: https://surreylangleyskytrain.gov.bc.ca/...ct-update-fraser-highway-and-166-street/

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Seattle is playing catch-up for sure. One place they have Vancouver solidly beat is funding. Measures were approved for future lines for the next 10-15 years.

West Link has been delayed for sure, but needs to cross the Lake at water level, pretty complex IMO.

They have 3 extensions under real construction, 2 opening in 2025 and 1 in 2026. At that time they will exceed Skytrain in terms of miles of track, and likely we'll never catch up.

They started ~20 years behind Vancouver and caught up and will beat us in their first 25 or so. Not in ridership of course, but the vision feels a lot more solid.

Re: bolded parts, I can't see how that's a deal. And I'll eat my hat if the Langley extension doesn't increase before all is said and done.

Seattle's Link also really isn't a urban train. It has a little urban component, but it's largely suburban commuter rail spanning hilariously long distances for light rail, which is probably better served by larger / faster trains. It needs the track mileage because the destinations are all hilariously spread out. There's a reason so many of the stations have park and ride facilities, and run along freeways.

The Skytrain is a hybrid of urban rail and commuter rail, tying together a bunch of town centres, and switching to being a subway in the core. It doesn't need the trackage because it's focused on developed areas of the city, or redeveloping underutilized areas.

There aren't really any analogies between the Broadway Subway for the link system for instance. Seattle went with a streetcar to serve trips for areas closer to downtown, and focused their high-quality service on the longer haul trips.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by chowhou

For Translink BRT is the new LRT. Love it or hate it, it has almost all of the problems but also almost all of the benefits at a lower cost.

Wasn't the Surrey BRT, which was just gonna be an enhanced 96/R1, gonna be just one minute faster than what is already there?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Put it in perspective: the streetcar would've cost triple the price, preventing a swap-out to SkyTrain, and only saved five minutes over the 96/R1.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Put it in perspective: the streetcar would've cost triple the price, preventing a swap-out to SkyTrain, and only saved five minutes over the 96/R1.

If you mean the L Line LRT - it was going to be slower than a bus. That's part of what sunk it for locals (why pay so much for rail when it's not going to be any faster?).

[cganuelas1995]

Still not sure why planners insist on suggesting LRT when it gets shot down every time

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Still not sure why planners insist on suggesting LRT when it gets shot down every time

I know, it’s become comical now. And they are doing it AGAIN for the purple line (North Shore to Metrotown).

I wonder how much time and money they could save by just saying “it’s going to be Skytrain” from the get go.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Still not sure why planners insist on suggesting LRT when it gets shot down every time

Which planners are doing this? City planners? I can't imagine Translink would.

City planners are up there with ivory tower eggheads who don't seem to live day to day in the cities they are planning for.