Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by SOSS

All terms are correctly listed. Within the context of this thread and within Vancouver, one could say:

BRT = frequent buses with limited stops. They should be in dedicated lanes but are not locally.

LRT are light rail trains (as apposed to heavy rail like West Coast Express) that are operated by people (Portland, Calgary, Edmonton and Surrey's current preferred technology). LRT does not necessarily mean at grade or not. There can be pedestrian and vehicle conflict points but not necessarily.

RRT is automated light rail trains like Skytrain and Canada Line that run in dedicated tracks that do not conflict with pedestrians or vehicles.

Isnt BRT same as any express bus then? such as B99 express tp UBC?

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

Isnt BRT same as any express bus then? such as B99 express tp UBC?

As I understand it, true BRT typically operates mostly on a dedicated right-of-way (busway) to eliminate / reduce delays. BRT's I've seen in a few Asian cities run on separated roadways down the center of the street with dedicated stations. I'm guessing they would also get priority at intersections to minimize delays.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

Isnt BRT same as any express bus then? such as B99 express tp UBC?

No, BRT is not the same as express bus. People just incorrectly refer to the 99 as BRT sometimes because it's the closest thing we have. BRT has many features above express bus, such as exclusive lanes, high frequency, all door boarding etc. The 99 is not BRT.

[trofirhen]

On a tangent, if you'll excuse me, here are two WIKIPEDIA lists of rail transit ridership in North America, first for subway (grade separated) systems.
Vancouver, you may notice, places surprsingly well, not only in cardinal numbers, but in ratio to ridership>metropolitan pop. size.

Below that is a list of LRT systems in North America, often in metro regions considerably larger than metro Vancouver.

First, subway, metro, or RRT, as you prefer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership

and then, the LRT cities (keeping in mind that several very large cities, have complementing subway systems, as in San Francisco, New York...)

Other cities are LRT ONLY, (Seattle, Portland, Denver, Houston, St. Louis, Minneapolis, among others...) and here, the success of our system stands out.
Check them' ridership figures!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

[GeeCee]

While RRT is certainly the best, it is comparatively quite expensive, hence why most American cities are not building it thanks to right wing populism.

Do 'guided busway' systems such as the O-Bahn count as BRT or RRT?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

While RRT is certainly the best, it is comparatively quite expensive, hence why most American cities are not building it thanks to right wing populism.

Yeah...that's not why.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There is no BRT in Vancouver. What we have are some limited stop services. Since they operate in mixed traffic, they're really no different than any other standard bus except that they don't service as many bus stops, which saves a bit of route time.

That's an important point many people always miss. The "B" lines like 99-B, 96-B, etc. are not actually BRT regardless of what Translink often will say. BRT is exactly as was pointed out, their own lanes, their own ROW, very very similar to trains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit

The question I always have (without seeing any designs) is when they talk BRT as an option in Surrey for KGB and 104th, do they just mean "B-lines" with some queue jumper lanes here and there? Or do they actually mean TRUE BRT? Has anyone seen an actual proposal? Because somehow I just think it will be slightly enhance B-line service but the busses will still be in general traffic lanes most of the time.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

While RRT is certainly the best, it is comparatively quite expensive, hence why most American cities are not building it thanks to right wing populism.

I think that's an oversimplification. There's certainly some of that, but a big part of it is that rail infrastructure costs significantly more to build in the US than in Asia and Europe.

Not just a little more - we're talking about $1.7 billion/km for New York's Second Avenue Subway compared to $200-300 million/km for similar subway projects in many Western European cities.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

That's an important point many people always miss. The "B" lines like 99-B, 96-B, etc. are not actually BRT regardless of what Translink often will say.

The "B" designation comes from "B-Line" which is a sound homonym of "bee-line" - meaning "get to your destination directly without any diversions". That's how it was originally marketed by TransLink.

As you say, it's got nothing to do with "BRT".

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by quobobo

I think that's an oversimplification. There's certainly some of that, but a big part of it is that rail infrastructure costs significantly more to build in the US than in Asia and Europe.

Not just a little more - we're talking about $1.7 billion/km for New York's Second Avenue Subway compared to $200-300 million/km for similar subway projects in many Western European cities.

That's owing to corruption, Buy America, and P3 Projects requirements that don't exist in Western Europe or Asia.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/...s-expansion-at-a-relatively-cheap-price/

Over the next ten years, New York, Los Angeles, and Barcelona each hope to have new underground rapid transit lines up and running. Gotham will spend $4.5 billion on a 1.7-mile line under Second Avenue. Los Angeles will get a 8.6-mile extension to the Westside for $6 billion. And Barcelona will have built 30 miles of automated subways for €6.5 billion ($7.9 billion according to today’s exchange rate).

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs

A huge part of the problem is that agencies can’t keep their private contractors in check. Starved of funds and expertise for in-house planning, officials contract out the project management and early design concepts to private companies that have little incentive to keep costs down and quality up. And even when they know better, agencies are often forced by legislation, courts and politicians to make decisions that they know aren’t in the public interest.

Comparing American transit-construction practices with those abroad yields a number of lessons. Spain has the most dynamic tunneling industry in the world and the lowest costs. In 2003, Metro de Madrid Chief Executive Officer Manuel Melis Maynar wrote a list describing the practices he used to design the system’s latest expansion. The don’t-do list, unfortunately, reads like a winning U.S. transit-construction bingo card.

[SOSS]

I'm glad there is no serious consideration to "Green Vision"

https://transportactionbc.files.wordpres...ision-vs-green-vision-ppp-nov-6-2014.pdf

-> It misses a lot of the major transit destinations along Broadway such as VGH, Central Broadway business district, West Broadway
->Some of the areas especially along 16th Ave are quite low density now and likely in the future
->The cost estimates are ballpark and don’t reflect some of the estimates done in more rigorous studies.

[GeeCee]

That document contains probably some of the worst cherry picking that I've ever seen.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Yeah...that's not why.

Please may I ask: Could you elaborate on your response to Jebby? It intrigues me.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

That document contains probably some of the worst cherry picking that I've ever seen.

No kidding!!!!! It's one of the hokiest, most unerally slanted pieces of transit propganda scheiss I've seen in a long time. Go send it to Zweisystem, then go back and check my Wikipedia entry. "Check and compare, you'll choose RRT" (old tv commercial for Westinghouse)

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

No kidding!!!!! It's one of the hokiest, most unerally slanted pieces of transit propganda scheiss I've seen in a long time. Go send it to Zweisystem, then go back and check my Wikipedia entry. "Check and compare, you'll choose RRT" (old tv commercial for Westinghouse)

I'm glad Adam Fitch's LRT proposal was torn apart for being garbage ( https://voony.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/adam-fitch-tunnel-vison-vs-green-vision/ ), too bad the same thing wasn't done with Paul Lee's for Surrey: http://udi.bc.ca/sites/default/files/eve...eakfast%20Regional%20Rapid%20Transit.pdf

Like, think about it, why would one city reject Light Rail, and another Embrace it?

At any rate Unless CoV decides to ban the car from crossing light rail paths, light rail is just a dangerous disaster in the waiting.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I'm glad Adam Fitch's LRT proposal was torn apart for being garbage ( https://voony.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/adam-fitch-tunnel-vison-vs-green-vision/ ), too bad the same thing wasn't done with Paul Lee's for Surrey: http://udi.bc.ca/sites/default/files/eve...eakfast%20Regional%20Rapid%20Transit.pdf

Like, think about it, why would one city reject Light Rail, and another Embrace it?

At any rate Unless CoV decides to ban the car from crossing light rail paths, light rail is just a dangerous disaster in the waiting.

You got that right!

I've joined some links from an examples in the USA of light-rail / surface vehicle incompatabilty, the most notorious perhaps being Houston, among others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrGNgCd6Pg8

http://cronkite.asu.edu/node/835

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iINZIP8p-4s

[st7860]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I'm glad Adam Fitch's LRT proposal was torn apart for being garbage ( https://voony.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/adam-fitch-tunnel-vison-vs-green-vision/ ), too bad the same thing wasn't done with Paul Lee's for Surrey: http://udi.bc.ca/sites/default/files/eve...eakfast%20Regional%20Rapid%20Transit.pdf

Like, think about it, why would one city reject Light Rail, and another Embrace it?

At any rate Unless CoV decides to ban the car from crossing light rail paths, light rail is just a dangerous disaster in the waiting.

dont forget salaries for a driver too

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by quobobo

I think that's an oversimplification. There's certainly some of that, but a big part of it is that rail infrastructure costs significantly more to build in the US than in Asia and Europe.

Not just a little more - we're talking about $1.7 billion/km for New York's Second Avenue Subway compared to $200-300 million/km for similar subway projects in many Western European cities.

Maybe some small European cities it costs that, but in big expensive western cities subways always cost a crap ton. London's newest 'metro' (Crossrail) line is ~$25-30 billion.

[Alex Mackinnon]

There's lots of things that make rail in the states really expensive. Mostly it's New York's fault for skewing averages though.

----

In New York, most of it is a matter of site conditions. I got to watch a presentation at the Tunneling Expo recently, and there is next to no room to work on Manhattan. For Second Avenue, they had to dig a giant sized station platform (300m long, several floors tall) with a surface footprint of 2 lanes for half a block.

In BC terms, that's building a decent sized underground generating station with the footprint of a Vancouver Special, while working directly underneath several billions of dollars worth of housing that makes Yaletown look like a pathetic ghetto.

New York has also really made a mess of implementation. Their MTA has been bulding Second Avenue since the 70s, and subsequently most of the initial assumptions and designs are out of date. The MTA was also in a death spiral towards bankruptcy for about 3 decades due to falling ridership, system wide vandalism, deferred maintenance and really poor equipment choices. Their ridership peaked in the 1940s!

Then add in that NYC's subway lines are super gold plated in terms of capacity. They're 4 tracks wide, with dual platform sets. That wasn't super expensive when everything was a shallow cut and cover, but using a TBM and deep stations, holy cow does it add up. Then everything has to run 24 hours per day.

----

Now in Vancouver it wouldn't be all that hard to find cheap locations for stations, to launch tunnel boring machines and store equipment on surface nearby. The stations aren't going to be 300m long and built to handle 3000 people arrving and unloading at the same time.

The worst thing we have to worry about is hitting the occasional boulder left by glaciers.

We don't need to move 1,000,000 people through the same station in a day, we can just build a second parallel line a couple km away. Also, while it may annoy people out drinking, 24 hours operations isn't considered a must-have.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

There's lots of things that make rail in the states really expensive. Mostly it's New York's fault for skewing averages though.

Thanks for the insightful post!