Since 2010, TransLink has been working on a Surrey Rapid Transit Study which aims to find a preferred technology, routing, and timeline with full lifecycle costing for rapid transit in the South of Fraser. The study's planning area includes Surrey, White Rock, and Langley City. TransLink has already determined the routing for future rapid transit in the South of Fraser and is working on narrowing down the technology options.
Yesterday morning at the UDI Vancouver Breakfast, TransLink presented the latest information on the study and further narrowed down the technology options from ten to four.
1. Bus rapid transit on Fraser Highway, King George Boulevard, and 104th Avenue
Capital Cost (2010$): $0.9 billion
Lifecycle cost (2010$): $0.82 billion
New weekday transit trips (2041): 13,500
Regional transit mode share (2041): 16.5%
Travel time (2041)*: 30 min
2. Light rail transit on Fraser Highway, and bus rapid transit on King George Boulevard and 104th Avenue
Capital Cost (2010$): $1.68 billion
Lifecycle cost (2010$): $1.28 billion
New weekday transit trips (2041): 12,500
Regional transit mode share (2041): 16.5%
Travel time (2041)*: 29 min
3. Light rail transit on Fraser Highway, 104th Avenue, and King George Boulevard south to Newton, with bus rapid transit from Newton to White Rock
Capital Cost (2010$): $2.18 billion
Lifecycle cost (2010$): $1.63 billion
New weekday transit trips (2041): 12,000
Regional transit mode share (2041): 16.5%
Travel time (2041)*: 29 min
4. SkyTrain on Fraser Highway, and bus rapid transit on King George Boulevard and 104th Avenue
Capital Cost (2010$): $2.22 billion
Lifecycle cost (2010$): $1.67 billion
New weekday transit trips (2041): 24,500
Regional transit mode share (2041): 16.6%
Travel time (2041)*: 22 min
It is interesting to note that Fraser Highway is actually the highest demand corridor in the study area which is good news if you live in Langley as rail rapid transit goes to Langley in three of the four options. Surrey’s King George Boulevard gets bus rapid transit in three of the four options. While putting SkyTrain on Fraser Highway and bus rapid transit on King George Boulevard/104th Avenue looks like it might become the preferred technology recommendation, I wonder if this recommendation will fly politically.
Surrey has been pushing hard for light rail as a tool to reshape the community. You can see the positive results that rail-based transit can have in shaping communities when you look at areas like Central Surrey. Even TransLink understand this and noted that building light rail is “most consistent with the City of Surrey’s urban development aspirations.” Sometime transit is about more than just moving people from point A to point B. Surrey could certainly benefit from the urbanity that comes with rail-based transit. It will make our region more livable.
 |
| Alternative 3: LRT on Fraser Highway, LRT on King George Boulevard south to Newton with BRT, continuing to White Rock, and LRT on 104 Avenue |
 |
| Alternative 4: RRT on Fraser Highway, and BRT on King George Boulevard and on 104 Avenue |
My prediction will be that either alternative 3 or 4 will become the recommendation for rapid transit in the South of Fraser. With an estimated capital cost of $2.2 billion, it is about the same price as the Canada Line.
*Travel time is Surrey Central to Langley Centre
3 comments:
In comparison to Alt. 4, Alt. 3 is pretty bad. Only 12k new trips for almost the same cost as 24k new trips? Please. As a bonus, Alt 4 has no transfer at Newton for White Rock travelers and has connections with the existing buses on Trans Canada.
That said, they could build it rail-ready. If the demand comes up by 2041, they could upgrade the needed line to include higher-capacity rail cars in addition to buses.
Washington, DC, is planning just such a hybrid system through its downtown, and Seattle's downtown bus tunnel already does that. No reason it couldn't work through South Fraser.
LRT's ability to "shape" demand into some sort of a more desirable form is vastly overstated. Jarrett Walker of humantransit.org in particular has been very critical of the notion of building transit in the hopes that it will attract more desirable development, especially at the expense of providing the best option for moving people, which is transit's priority. The inability of transit to provide competitive trips in other cities has often sapped political will to expand and improve systems.
A municipality's policy has a far greater degree of influence on new development and thus far, outside of the Metro Centre, Surrey has been struggling to densify along King George and 104th. Whereas it can be noted that the Northeast municipalities have had a great deal of success in densifying in preparation for the coming of the Evergreen Line, even when it was considerably up in the air.
Vancouver is also proceeding with it's Cambie Street plan, a plan to develop a more linear, corridor pattern of the type normally associated with LRT following the Skytrain. That may not be possible with a Fraser Highway Skytrain extension but if successful, it will change the paradigm. Rapid transit can and does shape development, but it's far less influenced by the choice of technology than is given credence by many people.
I can't imagine BRT not being able to capture most of the benefits of LRT if it's done to the same quality. It should be noted however that we have never really really built a non watered down BRT line before in metro vancouver. All of our lines have run in mixed traffic without some way of maintaining consistent headway.
Even if you consider the non-transportation aspects of LRT, you can probably replicate most of it with higher quality trolley-buses.
I guess it probably won't really matter though as long as the MOT's priorities trump translink's growth funding.
Post a Comment