Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 87

CLC · #**1721** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 9:43 PM**

^ arguably light rail serves somewhat different commute purpose than subway/freeway. If you talk about alternate, there is always simply walking and bike, in fact some people in Hongkong northwest towns do biking for regular commute.

back to topic, I surely 100% think LRT on Broadway a terrible idea, it is not against the form of transit itself, but just it will make everything worse on the unique Broadway situation.

Metro-One · #**1722** Posted **Sep 17, 2009, 9:53 PM**

Well that is why i think that when skytraing goes under broadway (dont even want to use the word if) that they should keep a local bus service running up and down the street to serve those shorter commutes. To me, this is the best solution for broadway.

fever · #**1723** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is the difference between these streets, in their current form, is that the one in Hong Kong has alterantes around it (the subway, freeway) while ours is the only one. This makes the idea of LRT on Broadway a terrible idea, because then we would be trying to stuff our most important vehicle route and the primary mass transit line into the same tight space, making both slow and terrible.

Broadway isn't the only east-west arterial. I might agree with you about the Broadway subway, but I'm getting sick of your half-truths in arguing for it.

Canadian Mind · #**1724** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 1:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fever

Broadway isn't the only east-west arterial. I might agree with you about the Broadway subway, but I'm getting sick of your half-truths in arguing for it.

Care t pick apart his half-truths?

mr.x · #**1725** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 1:50 AM**

^ well, there is 4th Avenue a few blocks south...though Broadway gets more traffic.

deasine · #**1726** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ well, there is 4th Avenue a few blocks south...though Broadway gets more traffic.

4th Avenue at the centre of Kitslano is horrible. You are bound to be stop at 2+ traffic lights going up the hill.

jlousa · #**1727** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 2:34 AM**

4th ave, 12th ave, 16th, 25th ave are all pretty close by and serve the same corridor. The argument for skytrain is the increased capacity and speed and can not be about the loss of lanes. There isn't a deficient of lanes in that area.

Canadian Mind · #**1728** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 2:42 AM**

I can see your point Jlousa, but isn't Broadway more of a critical and dense commercial ave vs. 4th, 12th, etc. Thus necessitating the extra lanes vs. those other avenues?

Metro-One · #**1729** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 2:44 AM**

Quote:

Broadway isn't the only east-west arterial. I might agree with you about the Broadway subway, but I'm getting sick of your half-truths in arguing for it.

Your right, it is a stretch calling Broadway a main artery compared to most cities I have been to.

All the other roads in that area are primarily in residential areas or are very indirect (they change into different streets, etc...)

this forum is funny what people in Vancouver consider main arteries or alternatives. Technically there are thousands of lanes going east west in Vancouver, but most of them are side streets/residential areas.

You know what, while we are at it, there are hundreds of logging roads in BC as well, so I guess we should start counting those as highways as well? I guess there are hundreds of highways connecting Vancouver to Calgary then!

The fact is that Broadway is the main street, and it is the one best suited for heavier, through traffic and commercial traffic. If there was an elevated freeway a block or two beside it, then that would be the main artery.

deasine · #**1730** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 3:07 AM**

The argument about the loss of lanes is still valid. The Broadway business district only stretches on Broadway and not the neighboring arteries. Like Canadian Mind mentioned, Broadway really is the primary road.

Canadian Mind · #**1731** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 3:12 AM**

That being said, with regards to 4th, 12th, etc... Could some of the more denser arteries in residential areas be served by street-cars a-la the one being put up for the Olympics to act as a feeder route for Canada Line, and depending on any North-South routing a Broadway extension of the Millennium line as well?

BCPhil · #**1732** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 3:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Your right, it is a stretch calling Broadway a main artery compared to most cities I have been to.

All the other roads in that area are primarily in residential areas or are very indirect (they change into different streets, etc...)

this forum is funny what people in Vancouver consider main arteries or alternatives. Technically there are thousands of lanes going east west in Vancouver, but most of them are side streets/residential areas.

You know what, while we are at it, there are hundreds of logging roads in BC as well, so I guess we should start counting those as highways as well? I guess there are hundreds of highways connecting Vancouver to Calgary then!

The fact is that Broadway is the main street, and it is the one best suited for heavier, through traffic and commercial traffic. If there was an elevated freeway a block or two beside it, then that would be the main artery.

I agree. But not only do we have to think about through traffic using it as an artery, we have to think about local traffic. Broadway is a place people actually go. They live there, work there, or shop there.

In fact, if it was just a through road used by people going from East to UBC, I would say they can find alternate routes. But the fact is Broadway is a mix of heavy local and through use. Taking away traffic lanes or parking lanes, and impeding left turns at most intersections would hurt the area.

Personally, if we had the monies, I would want to see Skytrain under Broadway and Streetcar/Tram down 4th, but not an LRT, more like a Toronto Style Queen Street Streetcar.

But we don't have money for both, so we have to pick one. And I would pick Skytrain because Skytrain will attract new Transit riders as it offers a major improvement over the B-Line: Speed.

LRT might sort of work, but it would harm traffic flow in the area, and offer similar travel times to the B-Line. I don't see how that will bring out that many more new riders for what we would be investing. Much longer LRT lines in other larger North American Cities don't attract as many riders as our Skytrain lines. Skytrain will bring new riders, not only on the Broadway Corridor, but also on the rest of the system (as they need to get there somehow).

cabotp · #**1733** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 7:03 AM**

I can just see ground based LRT being a nightmare in the broadway corridor. And it wouldn't be all that much faster than the B-Line. Because it would still need to slow up for the traffic lights. And 12th and 16th are really too far away for Broadway.

I also look at it this way. Why spend money on the cheaper option now and probably have to spend more money later on the more expensive option. When we can get the more expensive option cheaper today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCPhil

And a difference of 6 minutes between C-Line + bus and just bus would average out quite a bit with repeated rides. Some days the bus would get stuck on Oak street bridge or in Traffic on Granville or downtown. The C-Line will always be pretty consistent as there is usually not much traffic between Bridgeport and White Rock. Consistency matters to me a lot.

I think that is what people like most about the Skytrain system. That it is very consistent. You can almost clock your commute to the minute. It's also why I think there should be more park and rides.

mr.x · #**1734** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 7:06 AM**

^ and also, it's frequent. In most cases, you don't have to plan your train trip as another train arrive soon after.

cabotp · #**1735** Posted **Sep 18, 2009, 7:26 AM**

Yup

I'd rather the good headways than longer trains and less headways. I was at Commercial-Broadway other day. Just got off The M-Line and making my way up to E-Line and as I get to to top the escalators. I see a train for Waterfront. I could of run for it. But why because I knew the next train isn't that far behind. That train took off and as soon as I got to the Platform I could already see the next train coming along. That to me is what service is about.

Dave2 · #**1736** Posted **Sep 19, 2009, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCPhil

And that picture is the wide part of Broadway. Once you pass Burrard it starts to get more narrow, and once you get to Arbutus there is pretty much only 4 lanes..

And between Trafalger and Blenheim it narrows even more, with ped lights at evey intersection that doesn't have full lights, and you can't change a ped light to red on grandma just because the tram is a comin'.

biketrouble · #**1737** Posted **Sep 19, 2009, 6:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

4th ave, 12th ave, 16th, 25th ave are all pretty close by and serve the same corridor. The argument for skytrain is the increased capacity and speed and can not be about the loss of lanes. There isn't a deficient of lanes in that area.

Exactly! For what it's worth, I live 3 blocks from Broadway and one from Burrard and I almost never use Broadway to travel to and from the east side of town - 4th-6th-2nd and 12th avenue are far more efficient routes at almost any time of day (recent construction at 2nd+Cambie aside.) Broadway is a bad route for car travel for almost all the same reasons that it's claimed to be bad for LRT - too many traffic lights, crosswalks, people trying to park at meters along broadway etc etc.

I'm no urban planner, but I suspect that being a business and employment centre with heavy foot traffic - which I believe we all want to see for Broadway - and being a "traffic artery" are mutually incompatible. Broadway could probably stand to lose some traffic lanes, by widening sidewalks and adding a median for example, and would be a better place for it.

deasine · #**1738** Posted **Sep 19, 2009, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biketrouble

I'm no urban planner, but I suspect that being a business and employment centre with heavy foot traffic - which I believe we all want to see for Broadway - and being a "traffic artery" are mutually incompatible. Broadway could probably stand to lose some traffic lanes, by widening sidewalks and adding a median for example, and would be a better place for it.

Well you certainly can't loose traffic lanes for widening sidewalks if the LRT was built.

racc · #**1739** Posted **Sep 19, 2009, 9:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biketrouble

I'm no urban planner, but I suspect that being a business and employment centre with heavy foot traffic - which I believe we all want to see for Broadway - and being a "traffic artery" are mutually incompatible. Broadway could probably stand to lose some traffic lanes, by widening sidewalks and adding a median for example, and would be a better place for it.

Separated bike lanes would be great as well. A lot of people cycle down Broadway and there is a lot of sidewalk riding to get to businesses. Yet another reason to put the rapid transit underground so there is enough space on the surface.

trofirhen · #**1740** Posted **Sep 20, 2009, 12:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

Separated bike lanes would be great as well. A lot of people cycle down Broadway and there is a lot of sidewalk riding to get to businesses. Yet another reason to put the rapid transit underground so there is enough space on the surface.

Absolutely. Making the line underground is the only way to go. It may mean more capital outlay at the beginning, but that will eventually pay itself off, not only in not having to spend FURTHER money on changes and upgrades, but on the overall efficiency of being underground, keeping neighbourhoods intact, remaining bike-and-pedestrian friendly on the sidewalks . . . not to mention the aesthetic aspect.

Cities with above-ground, at-grade systems are constantly dealing with longer commuter times, traffic jams and snarl-ups, and a visual and local destruction of the urban environment.