Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[WarrenC12]

John Baird (Minister of Transport and Infrastructure) is in town today meeting with Gordo and Falco about speeding up some infrastructure spending.

Show me the money. After $3b for Ontario's CAW fat cats, lets see some rapid transit cash.

[Chikinlittle]

Depending on how much frequency is being aimed at for the Lougheed-Coquitlam stretch, double-coordinated seems to make the most sense from a passenger convenience perspective. That way nobody has to change trains at all, unless you're traveling from Coquitlam to Columbia, for example.

To break service at Columbia and Lougheed with the 'shuttle service' is just stupid. And the 'Break at Lougheed' option is just as dumb because then building the Evergreen line as SkyTrain would not utilize the benefit of providing through train service at Lougheed from Coquitlam.

Coordinating the trains shouldn't be that difficult. You keep the Expo/M-line coordination as is, and then you schedule the new Evergreen trains to coincide with the existing M-Line schedule on the common route west from Lougheed.

[lightning]

from the globe and mail

Rethinking the need for speed

DAVID BEERS

From Monday's Globe and Mail

December 15, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

Humanity is threatened by a global-warming crisis. Canada, facing the crisis of global financial meltdown, is looking for ways to keep people working. The time is ripe, it seems, for an era of massive, green public-works projects.

Projects like a 12-kilometre SkyTrain subway line connecting Vancouver to the University of British Columbia.

Imagine that train packed with smiling, eco-guilt-free students zipping on and off their secluded campus by the sea. The UBC subway line, which would run through the heart of the city, is already on the drawing board, slated for 2020. Provincial and Vancouver political leaders have voiced their enthusiasm. The price tag is set at $2.8-billion.

Well, hold on there. Patrick Condon, senior researcher at the Design Centre for Sustainability at UBC, has run further numbers and believes he has a more sensible plan.

Instead of building that train, you could give every new UBC undergrad the keys to their very own Prius automobile. Year after year. Forever.

That's right. As Prof. Condon calculates in a new study, you'd start by putting the $2.8-billion price of the train into a trust that earns 6-per-cent interest. That would generate $168-million a year - about enough to give every full-time undergrad entering UBC a basic $25,000 hybrid vehicle. (No leather seats - we're in crisis mode, you know.) Now wouldn't the planet - not to mention UBC's recruitment officers - like that approach more than just one measly new subway line?

If your head is whirling, Patrick Condon has achieved his aim.

"We as a society are trying to stave off dual crises of environmental collapse and economic collapse," Prof. Condon says. "That means our cities have to run a lot more efficiently. In fact, we need a new order of economic and energy efficiency in order to compete and stay alive. If we blow the big decisions in the next handful of years, we will seriously cripple our ability to adapt. We have to get it right."

Actually, for Prof. Condon, getting transit right does not mean giving away Prius vehicles to 18-year-olds.

Nor, however, does it mean further funding the Cadillac of public transit, Vancouver's SkyTrain.

Prof. Condon strongly advocates a third approach - street-level trams on rails - as the most eco-friendly and cost-efficient way to move people within urbanized regions, such as Vancouver.

He comes to that conclusion in his study "A Cost Comparison of Transportation Modes," co-authored with Kari Dow, a master's student in landscape architecture at UBC. The modes compared include the modern tram (rail vehicles operating on existing right-of-ways); light rail transit (operating on separate right-of-ways); the heavier, automated SkyTrain (a mostly elevated rapid-rail transit system); the electric trolley bus; longer and shorter diesel buses; the Prius hybrid car; and the Ford Explorer SUV.

When Prof. Condon and Ms. Dow measured each for economic and environmental efficiency, they produced some surprising comparisons.

For energy use and cost per passenger mile, the tram and LRT bested the rest. Put four people in a Prius, though, and it's only a bit worse than a loaded diesel bus.

Carbon output? The tram, trolley bus, SkyTrain and LRT all run on electricity, so their outputs were vastly lower than the diesel buses and autos, especially given B.C.'s hydro power.

But here's the zinger: Add up all costs for each form of transportation - capital, operating and energy - and guess which is most expensive per passenger mile? SkyTrain — even more than the gas-hogging SUV and nearly twice the winner, which is - you guessed it - the tram.

In a previous study, Prof. Condon's team created a map showing that for the same cost, you could have the single UBC subway line or dozens of tram lines running all over the region. They noted that in Portland, Ore., trams have enlivened neighbourhoods, bringing a rise in property values.

So why would super-efficient trams still be a hard sell? Speed. SkyTrain will whisk you across town, or across the region, nearly twice as fast as the tram.

But Prof. Condon says we're missing the point. As dual crises force us to adapt, we'll have to let go of something. Let it be our dream of effortless speed. The Space Age is passé. Take it easy and learn to enjoy the practical, if pokey, ride. Value connectedness, democracy, the way that trams, by costing less, can place public transit within walking distance of far more people. Instead of building bullet trains, use land intelligently, "so people already are close to where they want to go."

Prof. Condon's study starts a needed conversation as leaders rush to promise change, big and green, in scary times. U.S. president-elect Barack Obama's massive stimulus package could produce myriad smart, appropriate fixes.

Or if wrong, it truly could be the last great American boondoggle.

Here in Canada, we need people, like Prof. Condon, who prod us to think more deeply about how best to seize the opportunities that crises provide.

David Beers is editor of The Tyee.

[wrenegade]

There are so many problems with that idea.

1. Students aren't the only people going to UBC. UBC is the 3rd largest employment centre in Vancouver after Downtown and the Broadway corridor (which the UBC line would also serve)

2. The UBC line wouldn't just serve UBC. There is the entire Broadway corridor (as mentioned above) plus all of Kits

3. Where are we going to get 40,000 Priuses? Every year. Isn't there a big waiting list for that car? Where are they all going to park as well? Idiots. Plus the service life of the skytrain is much longer that a Prius.

4. We don't have much extra space in Vancouver. What are we going to do, tell the residents along 10th ave too bad, you're losing your street? It has to become a train track now, sorry!

5. People don't like going slowly. What is the incentive to take a tram if it's going to take so much longer to get there. People will remain on a bus or won't want to waste their time and just get in a car. You can't just tell people to "Take it easy and learn to enjoy the practical ride".

[hollywoodnorth]

Prof. Condon your an idiot.

That is all.

[city-dweller]

I agree.

This article may prompt a lot of opinions already well documented on this forum so I will be brief.

1:At-grade non-bus tech not efficient with intersections
2:These studies never take into account that a lot of west side Vancouverites will always rather take a car rather than take transit
3:With the new line, local transit can tap in to get to other regions faster
4:All those B-line buses are freed up.
5:Increase congestion to put at-grade

add any more points if you want...

[officedweller]

Information overload is right! Far too busy at work to check out the docs right now.

***********

Yeah, the initial assumption that only UBC students - or rather - that giving cars to only UBC students would solve the problem - is seriously flawed.

Of course solving PART of a problem is cheaper than solving the WHOLE problem - Doh!

[city-dweller]

I agree the guy is an idiot not with the study.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by lightning

from the globe and mail:
<snip>

Here in Canada, we need people, like Prof. Condon, who prod us to think more deeply about how best to seize the opportunities that crises provide.

David Beers is editor of The Tyee.

David Beers needs to take his own advice.

[officedweller]

Nice overview on Expo Line capacity here:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/procure...ate_SkyTrain_capacity_BCRTC_20070904.pdf

and here:

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/procurements/Q8-0123_-_08_RTM_SkyTrain_MaxCap_final_report.pdf

Of interest:

The 5-car Mark II train option

In principle, the SkyTrain system, with its 80 metre platforms, could accommodate a 5-car Mark II train,
made up of existing 2-car units (34.2 m.) coupled with yet-to-be-designed 3-car units (50.9 m.,
incorporating a 16.7 m. centre car). While the resulting 85.1 metre train would overhand the platforms,
the doors would fit within 78 metres, leaving a small, but potentially manageable margin of 1 metre at
each end. Assuming a comparable 130 passengers in the centre section of the 3-car triplet, a 5-car train
could carry 650 passengers under the currently applied loading standards.

It should be noted that there are significant design and implementation issues related to a longer Mark
II unit. This would require software changes within the ATC system, and potentially additional hardware
to ensure the required stopping precision. In addition are considerations of structural loading, propulsion
power capacity and distribution, station platform and passenger access capacity, yard and shop facilities,
and more. The extra “centre” car may share some equipment already required for the 2-car pair, it would
need a full share of propulsion, braking, heating, air conditioning and low voltage power supply.

[flight_from_kamakura]

well, the guy it hardly an idiot, considering he has far more education that most of us. he just has some very neighborhood-centric thinking, which is probably not a bad thing to keep in mind as we discuss all these things.

okay, on merits, it seems to me that this condon guy has some pretty good points:

1) trams do a lot for neighborhoods (which is why we want lots of them around vancouver, including, one day, up west 4th);
2) a tram network would cost a lot less (if we have limited transport dollars, this is the first consideration);
3) high speed trains contribute to sprawl (in some ways, rail like this works as a subsidy to the suburbs).

and there are good counter-points:

1) in what concerns rapid transit, if they must pay, generally taxpayers want to pay for significantly shortened travel times, not somewhat or slightly shortened travel times;
2) an underground line, with concomitant increased speed, would encourage a higher ridership than surface rail (weather, distance and time), meaning enhanced system viability and use;
3) an alrt along the corridor would set these neighborhoods up for the next hundred years, as opposed to merely the next 20-50. it's not unimaginable that a westside intersections like broadway & macdonald or 10th & alma would one day sport 40-50 story highrises.

[lightning]

I probably should have highlighted what he advocates in the article (sorry I was in a rush). This is basically it,

Actually, for Prof. Condon, getting transit right does not mean giving away Prius vehicles to 18-year-olds.

Nor, however, does it mean further funding the Cadillac of public transit, Vancouver's SkyTrain.

Prof. Condon strongly advocates a third approach - street-level trams on rails - as the most eco-friendly and cost-efficient way to move people within urbanized regions, such as Vancouver.

I tend to agree that we should be going with trams along broadway rather than an underground skytrain.

This is my take on the issue,

I think trams add a lot to the street vitality of Broadway and creates a more dynamic environment that encourages transit use

businesses would welcome it more than the construction associated with the skytrain.

In regard to intersections, adding transit signal priority to the line would allow the trains to continue through intersections without stopping

With travel times, trams would take more time to get to UBC than underground SkyTrain but, how much more time would SkyTrain save? and would it be worth the extra hundreds of millions dollars more that it would take to construct the SkyTrain?

With the billions of dollars that it would cost to build an underground SkyTrain line, we could easily use that money to build a tram to UBC plus an LRT/BRT line in Surrey, and maybe even part of another BRT/LRT line elsewhere in the region.

[Dave2]

x

[officedweller]

In my experince the Portland Streetcar (tram) travels at a speed slower than the B-Line bus.

[lightning]

yeah if anyone has any estimates of what the travel times might be for an underground SkyTrain, an at grade tram with right of way and TSP, and a BRT with right of way and TSP (assuming same origin, destination and stops as the 99B), that would be fantastic I would really be interested to know what the time savings of each system would be

[Stingray2004]

While this debate was also on a previous thread...

Broadway is a strategic regional east/west corridor that interconnects with the M-line. It's NOT an Arbutus corridor, which is more appropriate for trams, or some other typical lighter traveled intracity corridor.

An M-line extension would also provide seamless transit ridership (no transfers), has the higher capacity, etc.

Also look to the future of the Broadway/UBC corridor and the potential for density/population growth/ridership.

In that same vein, imagine if, during the early 1950's, the city decided to go for a four-lane (instead of 8-lane) replacement of the then 2-lane Granville St. Bridge. The city looked forward into the future 55 years ago.

BTW, I doubt that a tram along Broadway would have much more capacity than the current bus/B-line that currently traverses the corridor.

A tram line would also likely utilize rails along the curb lanes in each direction. Imagine the brouhaha such a scenario would create among the street level/storefront retailers who depend upon vehicular parking in front of their stores.

FWIW, one of the only things that I ever agreed with Prof. Condon on is the following:

"I endorse Peter Ladner for Mayor of Vancouver. He is knowledgeable and thoughtful, and invites the participation of many people with many points of view. We will need such a man to bring our citizens together to meet the challenges in front of us, most notably to be North America's unquestioned leader in developing affordable, beautiful and sustainable cities."

Patrick M. Condon
Professor, University of British Columbia

[Metro-One]

Ok, time for my two cents, hehe.

First of all - The M-line predictions do seem underestimated (for the future) Whenever i am on the train (M-Line) it is usually fully seated or standing room only, especially during school days. Commercial, Brentwood, Production, Lougheed & Braid to a lesser extent are all very busy stations, and areas such as Lougheed, Brentwood, Holdom, etc... all have great growth potential, which we are already seeing. The Evergreen line will be very popular in Coquitlam (just gathering from the buzz i have heard from my numerous friends in the area wishing for skytrain over the past 10 years) not to mention it will attract many riders from the WCE, Poco, Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows etc... which should further boost the M-lines numbers.

Second, - I don't quite understand what is meant by "shuttle" can someone please clearly explain that term to me, for some reason when i hear shuttle i think of those small handy dart buses

Third - At grade LRT would be an insanely bad choice. First of all Vancouver streets are not wide like other North American streets where it is easy to take space out of the road for trams with little disruption to traffic. What attracts me to ride transit is speed, i like skytrain and heavy rail. look at Japan for example, almost no trams in the cities, all grade separate metros and heavy rail. Many people would rather drive in their own personal car if transit is going to be equally as slow and annoying. Also, what happens if there is a car accident on the road? At grade to me seems more dangerous, all we need is some drunk idiot to get run over or some drunk driver to run into the train to stall the entire system. Broadway is a major business corridor that links the provinces largest university to the transit network, such an area requires true mass transit, a metro such as ALRT. LRT is perfect for small branch lines to connect small neighborhoods to the main stems of the train network. When will people figure this out? That is what makes a successful transit network. Portland's ridership numbers are actually very low if you look at them, people tend not to mention this. Building ALRT is thinking for the future, building this line as LRT is thinking Vancouver is still in the 1930's. Not to mention that building it as LRT will add another unnecessary transfer point from the M-Line. This is a no brainer, LRT is out of the question for this line. I also find it so funny he references bullet trains, haha, ALRT is nothing like a bullet train, does he even know what a bullet train is? So funny, i love it.

[DKaz]

I suddenly have second thoughts about platform extensions. If it is technically feasible to achieve 30,000 PPPHD with the current system as is, why spend billions adding to add a mere 20% passenger capacity? And if we ever do need to transport more than 30,000 PPPHD, why not build a parallel commuter/express line? There'll likely be some expensive sections especially through New West and Broadway but for the most part the line would be at grade. The way I see it, skytrains are already packed by the time it even leaves Surrey Central Station, and half of them are heading downtown. An express train would shave around 10 minutes off their travel time and give them a much more comfortable ride. Stops at Surrey Central Station, New West, Metrotown, possibly Broadway, then terminate at Waterfront (WCE) Station... just a thought....

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Second, - I don't quite understand what is meant by "shuttle" can someone please clearly explain that term to me, for some reason when i hear shuttle i think of those small handy dart buses

Yeah - that's the visual. Or add wings and heat resistant tile.
I think it just means it travels back and forth a short distance.

*****

Side note:

Portland bought self-propelled diesel LRT cars from Colorado Railcar and is paying for them bigtime - $17 M for the trains and $5.5 M to pump up the failing supplier.

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/12/trimet.html

[Gordon]

The shuttles mentioned in that study posted in an earlier post refers to 2 or 3 car trains running between Columbia sataion & Lougheed Town Center station in 2021 when the Evergreen Line \Millenium Line in the chosen Scenerio will run between Coquitlam Ctr and VCC Clark with transfers to downtown predominantly at the broadway commercial hub.