Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by santak003

Redefining maximum capacity of LRT at grade for Arbutus to UBC corridor: From 7200 to 36000 pphpd (and leaving LRT as a contender to skytrain): “Jan 2019 Rail Rapid Transit Study to UBC” (aka Slam the Tram).

The benefits of light rail run deep. Safety, Reliability, Comfort, Cost and Capacity.

“LRT is demand-responsive in that the length of trains and the service frequency can be easily adjusted when required”

In the Jan 2019 Rail Rapid Transit Study to UBC (aka “Slam the Tram”), McElhanney Consulting essentially knee-capped the LRT by denying the major pillar of “demand responsiveness” , by effectively limiting the LRT train to a theoretical maximum operating capacity at 7200 pphpd by limiting headways to 4 minutes and vehicle lengths to 2 train consists @ 80m total length with carrying capacity of 240 for each train unit for a max carrying capacity of 480 persons.

The rest of the report eliminated the LRT at grade from consideration for Arbutus to UBC, all because of this max capacity limit of 7200 pphpd.

Using data from Vancouver’s operational environment, an argument is laid out that the actual maximum capacity that should have been used in the report is 36000 due to two factors: Vehicle Carrying Capacity should be adjusted to 1200 from 480 and minimum headway should be adjusted from 4 minutes to 2 minutes. The argument for this is laid out in three separate documents (backgrounders).

The backgrounders will illuminate certain concepts while using conservative estimates to arrive at results and most importantly how the operational capacity risk of implementing LRT at grade is LOW and sufficient for 2050 time horizons:

- How and when to trust the minimum headway formula
- How the minimum headway formula does not account for traffic signal priority
- How the minimum headway formula assumes that traffic congestion/saturation is at a reasonable level
- How the minimum headway formula incorporates the level of bunching you are designing for
- How, in a well run operating environment like Vancouver, the dwell time of the train and it's variation is the main element to achieve low minimum headway
- How runtime data from Vancouver streets shows that traffic in Vancouver is at a low level of saturation
- How traffic signal priority at low saturation levels of traffic can be applied in a preemptive way with no effects on cross traffic (Low Risk of implementation)
- How 98% of the westside has 160m block lengths and the two locations where it is not (120m at Macdonald and Westbrook) should trade off pedestrian access for block length
- How by changing the train vehicles, one can achieve a higher capacity for 160m block lengths



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

LRT is great. It's a great technology that has a time and place for sure.

But there is no reason it needs to prove itself the best in every situation.

Just because it's possible to make the LRT trains obscenely long and dizzyingly frequent doesn't mean that it would be good idea, or that it would remain cheap. Going to theoretical capacities is also going to theoretical costs.

The point of LRT is not to go toe to toe with Skytrain. They are both tools that have their place. I have a drawer full of different sized screw drivers, but I don't go around trying to use my favorite one in every job.

LRT does not need to be the solution for every situation to justify its existence. LRT is the right choice for certain jobs, Skytrain for others. But don't warp the technology's capabilities to meet the criteria just because it's your favorite.

I can't help but think people defend using LRT on Broadway by saying it's capable of RRT stats, do so only because they can't admit it's not the right choice. Because in their minds admitting it's the wrong choice would mean it's the wrong choice always. And if it's the wrong choice always, then that means the only choice is Skytrain. And if Skytrain is the only choice, then my desired 3rd string transit line won't happen because Skytrain is too expensive for it. Therefore I have to campaign against Skytrain to validate LRT as a choice, a choice I need for my transit line I want built. It's a brain disease.

Sometimes it feels like people who compulsively need to directly compare LRT and Skytrain have the same brain disease as people who need to constantly talk about how their hands aren't small.

I call this disease zwei syndrome.