Design Assumptions and Trade Offs

For this study, all potential station locations are located 1 to 2 kilometres apart at major roadways where population and employment growth is expected to be high. Some alternatives cover more geography, so they would have more stations.

Should we add or remove a station location for any of the alternatives? Think about the trade-offs:

• Capital and operating costs go up as stations are added. Costs range from $2-5 million for a BRT/LRT station to $20 million for an elevated RRT station.
• Accessibility improves with more station locations, reaching more people, job centres, and other destinations.
• Travel times decrease with fewer station locations and increase with additional ones.
• Ridership is affected by the number of stations; more stations serve more people but also slow travel times, which could conversely impact ridership.
• More station locations may increase development opportunities but may also spread development along the corridor. Fewer station locations may focus transit-oriented development activity.

For this study, BRT and LRT systems are assumed to operate primarily at street-level, but tunneled or elevated service is possible. RRT is designed to be elevated and completely separate from other traffic, but tunneled or street-level service is also possible if fully protected with fences or walls.

Should we change the alignment for all or part of the route for any of the alternatives? Think about the trade-offs:

• Accessibility improves with street-level systems (BRT/LRT) because they are convenient and visible. It takes longer to access street-level RRT and tunneled and elevated systems because elevators, escalators or stairs are required.
• Construction costs increase substantially for tunneled or elevated systems and are highest for tunneled alignments.
• Street-level systems (BRT/LRT) are typically 10-15 km/hr slower than elevated or tunneled systems.
• Street-level systems can affect traffic and how road space is shared, by reducing space for travel lanes, boulevards and sidewalks, and restricting some turning movements.
• BRT and LRT systems can contribute to the urban environment by encouraging activity on the street. RRT requires physical barriers for safe operation, limiting community connectivity. In tunneled or elevated systems, visibility is reduced between passengers and the surrounding area. Elevated systems also have visual impacts due to the prominent guideway and station structures.

For this study, the BRT and LRT alternatives are assumed to operate primarily in the centre of the street. Side-running or outside lane running service is also possible, and could vary along the route depending on street widths, land use, and room required for transit, bikes and vehicles.

The RRT alternatives are elevated and assumed to operate primarily above the centre of the street. In some places, the elevated track may be side-running.

Should we change the alignment for all or part of the route for any of the alternatives? Think about the trade-offs:

• Centre-running systems allow stations to be located in the centre of the street, equally accessible from either side of the street. For side-running systems, station access is more convenient for passengers on only one side of the street.
• The right of way space required for street-level systems is reduced when station platforms can be built into existing sidewalk space. Elevated alternatives may require greater rights of way in side-running sections.
• Street-level systems running in outside lanes or along one side of the street limit access to frontages and driveways. They can also cause operational issues associated with illegal parking/stopping and emergency vehicle access. Centre-running systems largely maintain frontage access but limit left turn movements to signalized intersections.
• In elevated systems, turning movements are often restricted across centre-running systems for safety reasons because support columns impede visibility.

To fit BRT and LRT in the street, roughly six to seven metres of space is required along most of the route and nine to 12 metres at stations. This requires adjusting how road space is shared with other users (pedestrians, cyclists, transit, goods movement vehicles, and private cars). Here are some of the assumptions we made about various uses.

1. Bike Lanes: Outside traffic lanes are designed to be bike-friendly; and where space allows, dedicated bike lanes would be included.
2. Station Platforms: Additional road space may be required to fit stations in the centre of the street so they are accessible and convenient, affecting traffic lanes, boulevards, sidewalks or property.
3. Traffic Lanes: The City of Surrey’s planned road widening has been considered in designing rapid transit rights of way. The number and/or width of vehicle lanes may be reduced in some locations; however, the overall street capacity would increase because rapid transit moves more people. Displaced traffic volumes may be accommodated on parallel corridors through the city’s plans.
4. Left Turn Bays: To fit in platforms and allow rapid transit priority, some left turn bays may be shortened or removed. Left turn bays would be maintained at major intersections, but may be removed at minor intersections with vehicle turning restrictions.
5. Boulevard Plantings and Trees: Boulevards may need to be removed or narrowed. Street trees removed for construction would be replaced. Where space allows, planting strips and buffers will be maintained.
6. Sidewalks: To fit rapid transit in the street, sidewalks may be reduced in some areas but widened in areas where streets are reconstructed to accommodate rapid transit.
7. Properties: In some cases, property may be purchased to provide enough room to fit rapid transit in the street. This is a costly measure and only considered if the above measures are not sufficient or acceptable.

BRT and LRT would fit into two-lane streets as indicated, with:

• one general purpose traffic lane in either direction, and
• a two-way rapid transit right of way

BRT, LRT and RRT would fit into four-lane streets as indicated, with:

• two general purpose traffic lanes in either direction, and
• a two-way rapid transit right of way

Planning for rapid transit through Green Timbers Urban Forest considers community values, City of Surrey's plans for a four-lane road, growing traffic volumes along Fraser Highway and safety for all road users.

Rapid transit is assumed to share the planned right of way, minimizing additional tree or vegetation loss. A shared right of way somewhat reduces rapid transit reliability and speed and vehicle traffic capacity. Transit priority at intersections through Green Timbers illustrated below, would also help to allow safe and efficient rapid transit operations through the area.

Pedestrian and cycling paths would continue to be off-street paths through the park.

Representative artist rendering

Giving BRT and LRT alternatives priority at intersections would help to ensure it is fast and reliable. As a result, two types of intersections would exist:

• full movement intersections: all major intersections along the rapid transit routes, with no restrictions
• right-in/right-out intersections: restricting turning to only right turns at some minor intersections along the rapid transit routes

No significant changes to intersections would be required for the RRT alternatives routes.