The business case for LRT in Surrey
Posted on January 27th, 2008 in links, rants, surrey, transportation, vancouver |
Dave left a comment on my Transit Metropolis Vancouver post, challenging me to take it beyond a vision and to figure out if it is viable as a real plan, and how much it would cost. I didn’t quite fulfill that exact challenge, but combined it with the latest SkyTrain expansion plans in Surrey, and came out with this.
It’s a 14 paged document outlining what LRT is, why we shouldn’t build SkyTrain in the South Fraser area, and how much it would cost to build three LRT lines out here.
Surprisingly enough, the final estimate, based on a cost of $24 million per kilometre, three LRT lines totaling 100km in the South Fraser area could be built for $2.5 billion.
Considering that the SkyTrain extensions, tentatively set for completion between 2020-2030, will likely total nearly $5 billion by then, with only 22.7 kilometres of rail rapid transit.
I think the business case is clear. Check it out [PDF] and let me know what you think in the comments! :)
Sphere: Related Content
6 Responses
Great job, Paul! It’s very well researched and written, with a convincing, honest argument and good design. Any plans to present this to governing bodies?
Thanks for the history on SkyTrain in the GVRD. I didn’t know that and they are definitely important facts.
Your diagram got me thinking. I’ve gotten the sense that people hate transfers (= inconvenience and wait times), but in Europe with the nextwork of metros, people transfer all the time. And those systems are much more complicated but the *design* of wayfinding is excellent. I remember seeing the U-Bahn and LRT in Germany (not sure if I rode it) and in France I took the Metro. It was simple and awesome. People here will ultimately complain if a) it’s so costly they need to pay out in taxes and b) if they need to transfer but honestly, suck it up and go for the cheaper, sustainable, sexy-lookin route. With trains every few minutes, it’s not like waiting for a bus.
Oops, I thought “nextwork” looked weird… I meant “network” ;)
It was just meant to show that LRT, more than anywhere else in the region, is the perfect solution for rapid transit in the valley. I don’t plan to take it to officials, but you can if you wish ;)
Thanks for the support as always!
As always, Paul, an impressive feat of research and presentation. (Out of curiosity, how many hours did that take?) For Metro Vancouver’s population density, and our level of funding, LRT is clearly the way to go, rather than SkyTrain or subways (EarthTrain? : ) Sadly, as much sense as LRT makes on paper, it faces political problems, a level of emotion that defeats eminently rational minds. There is vocal opposition, however short-sighted, to LRT on routes in populated areas. If it’s along a highway fine- but in residential areas, people forcefully say that they don’t want to look at it. Due to local opposition along Cambie, there was no chance for Canada Line to have been built at level as LRT (or as SkyTrain). The median, which, ironically, was built for future transit use, has foliage deemed too precious: a “heritage boulevard.” (And don’t even get me started on the NIBYism of the Arbutus neighbours killing the use of the existing rail line for LRT, even though that very line operated for over 50 years as a transit link. Alas, that was before the real estate values, and the pretension, inflated. Can’t have the great unwashed spilling out of trains in front of our two million dollar homes, can we?) The route from downtown Vancouver to UBC in the next 10-15? years will probably have the same pressure applied. You can bet that businesses and residents will lobby for an underground route- at up to 3-5 times the cost as LRT, with fewer access points. I’d like to know how other cities, such as Portland, managed to overcome opposition to LRT. Is this another aesthetic fetish of “Super, Natural British Columbia”? What are the chances that it can ever be overcome? Are there other cities that have subways at the fairly low level of population density of our subway routes? (Perhaps Los Angeles- but that is hardly a success story)
.Also, it would also be interesting to compare in detail the trade-offs in transit times on subways vs. LRT, both at grade and with bridges and tunnels. I think given the limited number of subway stations, and the necessity of subway route users to continue to use buses or to walk, LRT would still be competitive to subways in total commute time, even given its slower speed, simply because it offers far more stops. (Interestingly, an engineer with TriMet in Portland told me that its LRT, MAX, on some routes, promises more “efficient” service than buses, but not faster service- more people can be moved at once, but those people won’t get to their destinations any faster. This may be due to MAX’s highly limited use of bridges, tunnels, and overpasses, a tremendous cost savings. We might able to do better with more funding.) I’m sure you, or someone you know, could speak to this.
[...] I understand the reasoning for SkyTrain to UBC and to Coquitlam, I am a vehement supporter of the development of a new rail transit network based on LRT. Surrey is in the perfect position to [...]
[...] I understand the reasoning for SkyTrain to UBC and to Coquitlam, I am a vehement supporter of the development of a new rail transit network based on LRT. Surrey is in the perfect position to [...]