Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[mr.x]

^ well actually, Zweisystem and Malcolm are the same person.


LOL, "sole member of the 'South Delta Light Rail Committee'".

[fever]

It may be technically possible to build LRT for $10m/km, and the streetcar demonstration project is a good example of that. That price will buy rails, ties, gravel, and trains. It won't buy an existing railbed, pay for relocating utilities or adding signal prioritization, and it won't include additional grade-separation. That price might be something they could use to promote the Southern railway in Surrey as a bare bones light rail line, and I hope they do even if I would prefer additional grade separation, but it's not realistic on Broadway.

[biketrouble]

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

I'm not opposed to Skytrain but I do think there needs to be an informed debate on the alternatives.

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

I also think that the commenter "David" makes a great point in response to (I believe) one of you guys when he points out that some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars. This is not a good basis for argument about transit in a built-up urban environment unless you are still living in the 1950s (and it was wrong then too.)

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

It's not the most critical thing in my opinion, but it does make sence seeing as how the line simply stops at VCC clark when it could instead keep on going. the skytrain extension is a natural progression whereas the LRT would be like throwing pepper onto cheesecake. There are better applications for it than here.



I think that what needs to be done to debunk the whle machine is to examine 3-5 LRT systems in other cities and compare them to our current system based off of the following criteria:

1. Current persons per hour
2. Designed maximum persons per hour
3. Persons per square meter
4. Travel times
5. Cost per kilometer overall (in current dollars)
6. Cost per kilometer per catagorised areas (light residential, dense residential, light commercial, dense commercial, agricultural or un-developed areas, special interest areas with many technical difficulties, etc)
7. Development impact on surrounding areas along the route
8. How it impacts area once developed, including how it meshes with the already established cityscape
9. Safety of the route

I think that if we catagorise a couple systems in Canada, the US, and internationally and compare them to what we already have in Skytrain we can develop the best argument in support of Skytrain. And just to be sure to knock the wind out of them, research the very best systems possible so that they have nowhere to turn if skytrain already beats the best they can offer.

If I've missed anything, please let me know. I would also be willing to assist in some of the research if someone givesme a helpful hint as to where to start looking.

[biketrouble]

VCC Clark would be an odd place to have to transfer, especially if you'd already transferred at Broadway/Commercial. But if LRT really is that much cheaper, you could probably rip up the 1km or so of track from Commercial to VCC and replace it using only a fraction of the savings.

[Metro-One]

So many people would find that the most odd and useless transfer ever if coming from the M line, i know i would. Look at all the points we have laid out, it is much more than just a transfer, it is everything from speed, to train/station lengths, the amount of surface disruption, safety, ridership numbers, etc...

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

It certainly isn't the highest goal, the no transfer from the M-Line, but it's one of many goals/reasons. It's an extension of the route, very much unlike the Canada Line in which it was not an extension of an existing route. When you reduce transfers, you reduce travel times and inconveniences and thus it also increases ridership.

I'm not opposed to Skytrain but I do think there needs to be an informed debate on the alternatives.

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

Malcolm's post was debunked more than a week ago.

I also think that the commenter "David" makes a great point in response to (I believe) one of you guys when he points out that some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars. This is not a good basis for argument about transit in a built-up urban environment unless you are still living in the 1950s (and it was wrong then too.)

Well, that's the truth. Broadway is a vital cross-city artery, and it's important that we maintain what road space we have. We're not talking about a highway here, we're talking about a 4-6 lane road that in many other major cities would be considered a minor road.

[mr.x]

LRT would likely start at Broadway/Commercial Station....at the intersection of Broadway/Commercial, where the 99 B-Line starts. So, it would really make VCC Station quite pointless.

[Metro-One]

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

Another reason why our responses are a little slow is because we actually research what we are talking about and double, even triple check our points to make sure they are concrete. If you notice the LRT responses often pull facts from various LRT lines ranging widely in technology and never actually comment on a single technology that they believe would be well suited for the broadway corridor. They are skirting the issues at any possible chance. They have even resorted to childish behavior in their last response.

Yes, many of their facts are correct, for other LRT systems, not one that could be put down Broadway. I would love to see this LRT they are talking about that only costs 10 million a KM being built down the middle of a major road artery, is decently fast despite being located within 50/60kmh speed zones with countless traffic lights while also taking on the role of a local bus with countless stops, has a capacity of 20 000 pph, despite the fact the trains would have to be relatively short due to Broadway's short blocks in areas, is able to run frequently, despite all the traffic intersections (that is a lot of signal queuing), and is able to climb steep grades. Until they actually show me a detailed report showing this amazing fantasy system that can be built for 10 mil a km they are simply Cherry Picking!

I for one have never seen that system, have you?

[Spork]

Originally Posted by mr.x

LRT would likely start at Broadway/Commercial Station....at the intersection of Broadway/Commercial, where the 99 B-Line starts. So, it would really make VCC Station quite pointless.

I'm not sure what the construction looks like around there or when it would be needed, but perhaps the station could be demolished and the area be converted into some sort of supplementary OMC?

[DKaz]

zweisystem called us armchair transit enthusiasts!!! *INFURIATED* Who does he think he is?!

[fever]

I think it's important to get expected costs for some typical LRT configurations. Things like induced development and current passenger volumes are too route-specific to compare between routes or cities.

It's a bit ridiculous to expect either technology to win on all counts for any route.

The pieces of information to get are:

For costs:
1) Grade separations/km
2) Fraction:
a. in street
b. elevated
c. in subway
d. on old rail right-of-way
3) Average cost/km

Operating parameters:
1) Average speed
2) Maximum passengers/train
3) Minimum practical headway
(Maximum practical capacity is (2)/(3))
4) Attendants/train
5) Downtime


Calgary has some information like this:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html



The points on the transfer at Commercial and the grade west of Alma aren't that important. An M-Line West extension would be the more elegant solution, but if there is to be a switch in technology at some point along the line there or at Arbutus are the best places for that to happen. Vanmap doesn't work for me, but it's really not hard to check if you're on a Windows box. Has someone posted what the grade actually is? If it's >8% at any point it, it's +1 for Skytrain.

[biketrouble]

>Broadway is a vital cross-city artery

It is an important street because of the businesses and amenities along its length - but losing two lanes, when cars also have the 2nd-6th-4th route, 12th (to Macdonald) and 16th a few blocks away, is perhaps not such a big deal.

(But then I am one of those crazy people who is in favour of the Burrard Bridge bike lane trial as well, and I know just how popular that is on this board.)

[Metro-One]

We never said skytrain would win on price, but them throwing in the 10 mill per km figure is out of whack!

[mr.x]

# zweisystem Says:
May 12, 2009 at 8:33 pm

I will repeat this for all you armchair transit enthusiasts, recent studies have shown that the overall ambiance of a transit system, including ease of use, ease of ticketing overshadow speed in attracting ridership. A streetcar operating on a reserved rights-of-ways (in fact LRT) can obtain commercial speeds near or equal to that of a metro at a fraction of the cost of a metro.

What is a high capacity transit line? Any LRT/streetcar line can and does, carry 20,000 persons per hour per direction in peak hours! But here is an important fact you maybe not aware of; as 1 tram or LRV (1 driver) is as efficient as 6 to 8 buses (6 to 8 bus drivers) and for every bus or tram operated, one must hire at least three people to drive, maintain, and manage them. Thus on a transit route that uses 70 buses (210 employees), about 10 or 11 trams (30 to 33 employees) need to be used. Now factor the wage saving over a 25 year period and you see huge cost saving by operating LRT.



# zweisystem Says:
May 12, 2009 at 8:43 pm

The higher commercial speed that you claim for SkyTrain comes from a penalty of fewer stations and fewer stations means fewer transit customers. Again I stress it is not speed that attracts customers to transit but the overall ambiance of the transit system including ease of use that attracts new custom. Studies have shown over and over that the transit customer wants his/hers transit, on the pavement, easy to use, not up in the air or deep in a tunnel. Busways have proven expensive and in Europe the cost for guided bus or busways are only about 30% cheaper than light rail and have proven not very popular with the transit customer. A bus, is a bus, is a bus.

Unless there are traffic flows of over 500,000 passengers a day on a transit route, there is no need for an expensive metro. Building a SkyTrain subway to UBC, will be utter folly and lead to a $5.00 one zone fare by 2015! Already TransLink is feeling the financial pinch of the folly of building metros on routes that do not have the ridership to sustain them. A SkyTrain subway may break the back of TransLink and the collapse of the entire public transit system.



# zweisystem Says:
May 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm

The Seattle hybrid LRT/light-metro has more in common with light-metro systems than LRT systems. True their is some on-street operation, but the majority of the line is on viaduct or in tunnel. Those portions of the line, operating on viaduct or in tunnel are considered light-metro. Seattle’s transit planners wanted heavy-rail metro but was scaled back to LRT to obtain Federal funding.

The Canada Line, like the SkyTrain lines are signaled by a movable block system and have Automatic Train Control (ATC) and (Automatic Train Protection ATP) and Automatic Train Operation (ATO) which is the basis of automatic or driverless operation. As with all driverless train systems there is the ability to revert to manual control if the situation warrants it and if there’s a driver or attendant on board. Driverless trains by their nature do not have drivers.

“The Canada Line would have been able to run at-grade, the Richmond City Counsel suggested it run at-grade, but was rejected.” Sorry to burst your bubble, but SkyTrain operates at grade on portions of its line but is heavily fenced, with 8 foot fencing topped with razor wire. The same would be true of the Canada line operating at grade and in no way would be interface with on-street traffic.

“Sadly, because the RAV/Canada line was scaled down to such a degree to save costs, it actually has about, as built, 60% to 75% the capacity of a simple LRT line, such as if one were to have been built down the Arbutus Corridor!” There have been many reports about how RAV was downscaled to reduce cost. The station platforms in the subway section will only accommodate 3 car trains and to enlarge them would be phenomenally expensive. Also portions of the route is single track in /Richmond, further impairing operational capacity.

Fact: Capacity is a function of headway and grade separation has little to do with capacity. Train lengths and headways are the keys to higher capacity.






Overall ambiance....yea, right.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Fact: Capacity is a function of headway and grade separation has little to do with capacity. Train lengths and headways are the keys to higher capacity.

Obviously he's loosing it.

[dubsH]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

I don't get this "skytrain would be better because there would be no transfers" argument. Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway.

What is the incentive of taking transit? Two major incentives: ease of use (little to no transfers, etc) and an overall quick journey time.

While it won't be seamless travel for Expo and Canada Lines (people still call it RAV??), the overall journey time for Skytrain will be shorter.

Also, where will the OMC go for an LRT line? You save costs by consolidating operations with one technology (in this case "Skytrain") which may be incorporated with the Evergreen maintenance facility.

I'm not opposed to Skytrain but I do think there needs to be an informed debate on the alternatives.

Er... sorry, other way around. There IS informed debate on the alternatives. I doubt many would disagree that LRT (in general) is a viable option for the Valley.

I do think that it's telling that Malcolm's first post on this subject has been up for *two weeks* and yet you are still talking about needing rebuttals for all of his points. This is hardly a well-oiled political machine you've got going here - and perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that he is right in some of his arguments.

Sorry, using ad hominem and name-calling is hardly a good argument. He's right in some of his arguments because he cherry-picks (yes, cherry-picks) statistics to back up his point. If this Malcolm is under the alias "grumpy", then I've debated with him before and he doesn't really listen to the opposition's argument.

I also think that the commenter "David" makes a great point in response to (I believe) one of you guys when he points out that some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars. This is not a good basis for argument about transit in a built-up urban environment unless you are still living in the 1950s (and it was wrong then too.)

Where do you suggest all the traffic that's normally on Broadway go?

Metro Vancouver is still heavily car dependent, and reducing 2+ lanes from a 6-lane MAJOR CORRIDOR immediately is possibly the worst idea a transit enthusiast could support. Where are these cars going to go? They're not going to disappear, they're just going to displace elsewhere onto other streets. If they see how slow LRT runs on Broadway, there'll even be less incentive to take transit.

Offer an alternative to the car first (Skytrain), then slowly remove lanes of roadway if automobile traffic declines.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

some of your arguments in favour of Skytrain are basically about preserving space for cars.

re grade separation... It's not that we don't want rail transit to interfere with traffic....we don't want traffic to interfere with rail transit.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by dubsH

Er... sorry, other way around. There IS informed debate on the alternatives. I doubt many would disagree that LRT (in general) is a viable option for the Valley.

Agreed. 15 minute LRT service from Haney (us old timers still call it Haney) to Braid or Coquitlam on the Evergreen line would be... um... great

[biketrouble]

Ease of use isn't synonymous with "no transfers". Easy transfers, perhaps. In my experience of transit systems around the world (London - my home town, New York, Paris) I would say the majority of journeys on those systems involve transfers. It's not great, but it's somewhat inevitable.

I'm sorry but saying MAJOR CORRIDOR in caps doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I already pointed out some other streets that could take the traffic upthread.