Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Rusty Gull]

A major debate at Stephen Rees' blog is blowing up, with the readers turning on Rees himself. At the center of the debate is a study by Patrick Condon that Rees is touting, that is full of holes in terms of SkyTrain ridership. The usual suspects are of course weighing in (including Malcolm), but that hasn't stopped the silent majority from suddenly fighting back against the LRT fanatics.

http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/cost-comparisons-of-transportation-modes/#comments

[WarrenC12]

Saw this while arguing with the brainless zombies on railforthevalley.com:

Your nemesis is here!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=169753053447

[mr.x]

^ the group is almost 2 months old, and has 2 members...nice!

[BCPhil]

If every public service was about cost per user, and not the end result, at hospitals we would just slap a band-aid on people and send them home with a couple Tylenols. It would save us billions and still help a significant number of people. Sure people would die, but $$$$.

In Vancouver, driving is extremely affordable, and very convenient compared to other cities. Transit has to compete with that. If we were going to do everything by the dollar, then subsidizing roads is probably the best choice for the majority of people.

But that is not what public transit is about. It's about the public financing a method of transit that can move as many people as possible. I would say the total number of people moved is more important than cost per person moved. Our system could be cost effective if we moved only half the people we do now by cutting services.

If we had LRT in lieu of Skytrain and ran it like Portland, and even increased our miles of track by 20 mils to match theirs, we could probably slightly beat their ridership of just over 100,000 people a day.

It would probably be very cost effective, but that's 200,000 trips provided by transit we would be losing all in the sake of being cost effective. I would take the 200% higher number of boardings for what we spend, thank you very much.

It's difficult to find hard evidence to prove, but when you compare Skytrain to local competition (Portland, Seattle) we are kicking their butts, and I feel that that is because of our mode selection. The rapid travel times and super high frequency (at all hours of the day) of Skytrain brings people out to ride it. LRT in Portland might be cheap to build, but we are providing a service the public actually uses more.


In that report, figure 10 is very misleading without context. It's also comparing a single apple to the average of a crate of oranges. Comparing Skytrain to the "average" LRT/Tram System isn't always accurate. I mean the T in Pittsburgh (metro population of 2.5 million) averages only 27,000 riders a weekday for 40Km of track.

Our system allows multiple Skytrain vehicules to go past a point in the span of time that 1 LRT or Tram would go past on the "average" system.

As well, as the report almost points out, Skytrain even with less energy efficiency than LRT, powered by Hydro emits less GHG than an LRT system powered by more conventional means. For instance, the report indicates, but does not state, that Skytrain carbon emissions using Hydro is 1.54, BUT LRT emissions using Coal is 26.4. This report can show almost anything based on the conclusions you want to draw.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

This report can show almost anything based on the conclusions you want to draw.

And that's exactly why Stephen Rees and other zealots pull these things out.

[satishreddy]

Folks:

I believe that report you are discussing uses ridership and costs for the Evergreen line for the Skytrain example and not the Expo line - see references at the end. Of all the lines Expo, Millenium, Canada, Evergreen,and UBC, I believe that the Evergreen will provide the lowest bang for buck. The reason in part, is that the EG line goes through part of the region with relatively low density. In my opinion, that is why skytrain fares poorly in this study.

Look at density numbers:

Density
Vancouver - around 13,800 people/mile^2
Burnaby - around 6,000 people/mile^2
Richmond - 3,600+ people/mile^2
Coquitlam - 2,000+ people/mile^2
Surrey - 3,300 people/mile^2
Port Moody - 2,700 people/mile^2
New West - 10,000 people/mile^2

Density alone does not determine ridership but it is significant factor. In my opinion, the UBC line should be build before Evergreen line. Not only is there higher density in Vancouver, but also the stops along the UBC line are located where there are significant number of places where people want to go for jobs and school and also transfer possibilities from buses and Canada line. Even if one neglected to count all those living in downtown Vancouver - about 80 - 100K, the density of the city is still over 10,000 per square mile.

Based on the "density" hypothesis, I think it is a waste to extend skytrain significantly in Surrey - a few additional stops may be okay, but it makes no sense to entend to Langley.

Satish Reddy

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

Folks:

I believe that report you are discussing uses ridership and costs for the Evergreen line for the Skytrain example and not the Expo line - see references at the end. Of all the lines Expo, Millenium, Canada, Evergreen,and UBC, I believe that the Evergreen will provide the lowest bang for buck. The reason in part, is that the EG line goes through part of the region with relatively low density. In my opinion, that is why skytrain fares poorly in this study.

Look at density numbers:

Density
Vancouver - around 13,800 people/mile^2
Burnaby - around 6,000 people/mile^2
Richmond - 3,600+ people/mile^2
Coquitlam - 2,000+ people/mile^2
Surrey - 3,300 people/mile^2
Port Moody - 2,700 people/mile^2
New West - 10,000 people/mile^2

Density alone does not determine ridership but it is significant factor. In my opinion, the UBC line should be build before Evergreen line. Not only is there higher density in Vancouver, but also the stops along the UBC line are located where there are significant number of places where people want to go for jobs and school and also transfer possibilities from buses and Canada line. Even if one neglected to count all those living in downtown Vancouver - about 80 - 100K, the density of the city is still over 10,000 per square mile.

Based on the "density" hypothesis, I think it is a waste to extend skytrain significantly in Surrey - a few additional stops may be okay, but it makes no sense to entend to Langley.

Satish Reddy

Density studies with Surrey are kinda unfair in my opinion.
All of Surrey should not be put into one.
Seeing is how skytrain would only deal with north Surrey it should take in to that areas density only and not group it with south and the 1/3 of Surrey that is farm land

[Rusty Gull]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

Folks:

Density alone does not determine ridership but it is significant factor. In my opinion, the UBC line should be build before Evergreen line. Not only is there higher density in Vancouver, but also the stops along the UBC line are located where there are significant number of places where people want to go for jobs and school and also transfer possibilities from buses and Canada line. Even if one neglected to count all those living in downtown Vancouver - about 80 - 100K, the density of the city is still over 10,000 per square mile.

Satish Reddy

[Rusty Gull]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

Folks:

Look at density numbers:

Density
Vancouver - around 13,800 people/mile^2
Burnaby - around 6,000 people/mile^2
Richmond - 3,600+ people/mile^2
Coquitlam - 2,000+ people/mile^2
Surrey - 3,300 people/mile^2
Port Moody - 2,700 people/mile^2
New West - 10,000 people/mile^2

You missed City of North Vancouver: 9,601.1/mile^2

How is it that every other jurisdiction on this list has, or is getting, light metro -- and dense North Vancouver (which is second for density in the region, behind only Vancouver) is stuck with NOTHING?

[Canadian Mind]

Third, you missed New West, which is getting denser daily.

And I think having Skytrain in North Van would be too hard to integrate with the current system unless a future trans-canada bridge also incorporates capacity for a skytrain line.

[Metro-One]

Because the North Shore is NIMBY central.

The Evergreen Line has and will face far less opposition then the Broadway Corridor (especially since it will be tunnelled and Cambie memories are still fresh). Look at how much nonsense has already gone to supporting LRT over ALRT/Metro on such a busy essential corridor.

Also the Evergreen Line is far ahead in planning and alignment then the Broadway corridor and has significant Federal and Provincial funding already allocated for it. To stop this project now, at this stage, would be incredibly silly (not to mention all the money that would already have been wasted on all the studies/open houses/designs etc...).

Also the North East sector is rapidly growing and actually has very dense neighbourhoods, major retail/commercial centres and major transit hubs along its chosen route.

The amount of high-rises built along where this line will go in Port Moody and Coquitlam over the past 5 years is amazing.

Do I believe that the Broadway corridor deserves rapid transit more then anywhere else in our region, yes, am i angry this line is being built first? No, simply because these communities have been campaigning for it for decades, have been mending their urban designs over the past 10 years anticipating such a line, and are essentially in full support of the project.

Metro-Vancouver already has far to many splits in ints pro-mass transit groups: Rail for the valley, LRT over skytrain, etc... The last thing we need is another split among the skytrain supporters.

Yes the Broadway Corridor should have been built first, but in all honesty, the tri-cities community was able to get their shit together quicker and stronger, so they now deserve it first.

[Zassk]

Looking at the huge capacity issues at Broadway-Commercial and the segment of Expo from there to downtown, obviously Expo needs expensive capacity expansion in this segment - or relief. I am surprised that Translink does not see the Canada Line + Millennium extension as a solution. Surely it would be cost-effective to connect the Millennium to another route to downtown (i.e. the Canada Line) and thereby spread the passengers out across 3 lines instead of one? Surely we could use the Evergreen TBM's to connect Millennium to Canada Line in the near term, even before we consider committing to the larger UBC line?

[Metro-One]

That i would like to see built at the same time as the Evergreen is a short extension of the M-Line to the C-Line.

[mooks28]

Building more rapid transit in Vancouver while the suburbs choke in traffic is not politically possible.

You want to pit the suburbs versus the city? This is a good way to start. It would explode Translink once and for all as the suburbs simply don't see Translink as an entity that serves them very well at all. You can see each and every suburban mayor saying they want their municipality out and they'll be on the phone to the Premier pretty bloody fast.

We can have technical arguments about density, etc. or talk about what things would be like in an ideal world, but when push comes to shove, transit planning is a political beast.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mooks28

Building more rapid transit in Vancouver while the suburbs choke in traffic is not politically possible.

You want to pit the suburbs versus the city? This is a good way to start. It would explode Translink once and for all as the suburbs simply don't see Translink as an entity that serves them very well at all. You can see each and every suburban mayor saying they want their municipality out and they'll be on the phone to the Premier pretty bloody fast.

We can have technical arguments about density, etc. or talk about what things would be like in an ideal world, but when push comes to shove, transit planning is a political beast.

Yes, exactly. Translink is in a bind though. The suburbs cry out for more transit, yet those regions are exactly the ones that constantly come up in auditor reports as being the biggest money losers, and routes that Translink should drop to get themselves back into better financial shape.

I think they should do several studies (like the UBC one being done now) for new rail or even BRT routes.

Put the numbers out there. If Surrey wants an LRT down KG or 152 for example, the city of Surrey should commit to some decent ridership numbers or face the financial penalties. Then maybe they'll act in a better spirit of cooperation and build their cities around transit, unlike the panic politics of Corrigan and Trasolini. The first region to step up and commit gets the next big capital investment in transit.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Density studies with Surrey are kinda unfair in my opinion.
All of Surrey should not be put into one.
Seeing is how skytrain would only deal with north Surrey it should take in to that areas density only and not group it with south and the 1/3 of Surrey that is farm land

Same with other cities.

Only 2/3 of Burnaby, 1/3 of Port Moody, 1/3 of Coquitlam, and 1/3 of Richmond is populated.. Density over the entire district is not a good measure for determining ridership.

One simple reason for unfair comparison using Evergreen Line stat is simply because its near the end of the line. Most transit routes should expect lower ridership near the end of the line.

[BCPhil]

The reason bus ridership in Surrey is so bad is what's the point. In Surrey, if you are not traveling over any bridges, transit is for poor people. Going from point A to point B south of the Fraser, it is much, much faster to drive, without fail.

Most people who would take the bus, but don't, would like to take it to Skytrain to get over the river. But for a lot of people, like in South Surrey, or Cloverdale, or Langley, its almost an hour long bus ride just to get to King George station. So again, what's the point? I'm pretty sure, that even driving in traffic from Cloverdale to downtown takes less time than transit.

If Skytrain were extended in 1 of the 3 directions it could go (Guildford, Langley, or Newtown) you would see a ridership explosion. For example, if people in Cloverdale could take a quick bus trip down 64th ave, to a station at 64th and KG, more people would. Same with if the train went to TCH and had a mammoth PnR.

It's not so much about denstity, as it is about getting it that much closer to more people. Broadway is a different beast. You already have ridership, as well there are people who don't take transit there because they don't like riding the full B-Lines. You would be providing more destinations, attracting more riders to the system.

[Metro-One]

The same could be said for the Evergreen line as well. People in the tri-cities want to take skytrain but the local bus service is pretty bad, and many of the routes take far longer then driving and have far to many transfers for the distance being covered.

And trust me, the B-line from Coquitlam to Lougheed station is NOT A -LINE. They should call it the zig zag for it goes all over the map and takes 3 times as long to go from point A to B then if a car.

Skytrain though will be much different, in most times of the day it looks as if it will be faster to take from Coquiltam to Lougheed then if driving. That will attract lots of riders!

And again, I really do believe that the tri-cities area deserves their line first, for they have generally had their act together and have been asking for such a service for a long time now. They have even been building for it (look at all the new density built by Coquitlam Center) over the past few years now and as far as I know much of their current urban planning has been largely based around such a line.

If the Broadway Corridor community had been demanding skytrain as long as the Tri-cities area, then I am sure they would be getting it first, but they didn't.

I should also note that by pure luck the least dense portion of the Evergreen Line (and least likely area to see significant development) is the same stretch that has to be relatively deeply tunnelled anyway, due to that area's steep grade.

Port Moody and Coquitlam's cores also seem far more centralized then Surrey and other communities south of the Fraser. Of course I am aware of the big strides Surrey is doing to mend this situation and I also fully support the skytrain extensions into Surrey.

I just don't see the problem with building the Evergreen Line first given the political history and development of our area.

I am willing to bet that the Broadway Corridor will more appose skytrain then welcome it. That causes huge roadblocks for development, so let us squeak through the Evergreen Line while we work those PR problems out.

[BCPhil]

It will be interesting to see how the Canada Line plays out in spuring growth and travel around the region. I think it's already making the "growing pains" of building the line pay off less than half a year in.

I think it's possible that public opinion, especially of business, towards rapid transit construction will change. Just look at what Canada Line is doing for No 3 Road in Richmond, and the public response to riding it is positive. I think merchants and more specifically the landlords along Broadway will want a piece of that action thrown their way. If you have invested in an office tower along Broadway, or a property you want to develop, why would you not be shouting at the powers that be for Transit to serve your building?

[Metro-One]

That is also exactly why it is smart to build the Evergreen Line first!

By 2014, the Evergreen line will be done (I am not saying "if," have to think positive) and then we will have 5 years to display the full positive impact of the Canada Line on the Cambie Corridor to showcase to the Broadway Corridor.

The tri-cities already want skytrain and have been fighting for it for years, so give it to them! And hopefully by the time the Evergreen Line is done there will be enough desire along the Broadway Corridor to begin construction of the M-line extension ASAP.

As I said before all of the bogus negative spins along Cambie are still to fresh in memory and the benefits of the C-Line are still to juvenile to gain enough support for M-Line extension.

Therefore the 4/5 year Evergreen Line construction period buys us the perfect amount of time!

(and thankfully the majority of the E-Line will have relatively smaller construction impacts then the C-Line)