Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[mr.x]

If you're going to build it, do it right or don't do it at all....or to an extent, "go big or go home".

There's absolutely enough demand to warrant SkyTrain in the corridor. It has been debated to death around here. All this talk about building something that will last for 20-30 years...have we really become such a short sighted region?


At the very least, build it to Arbutus at least. I don't even understand how there's a debate over that. Building to UBC is certainly debatable given the cost, but even Arbutus is too much for some people? Really???



BTW, that "I Support Extending SkyTrain to Guildford and Langley" Facebook group is now nearing 1,000 membes: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=215449497056&ref=ts

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by mr.x

If you're going to build it, do it right or don't do it at all....or to an extent, "go big or go home".

There's absolutely enough demand to warrant SkyTrain in the corridor. It has been debated to death around here. All this talk about building something that will last for 20-30 years...have we really become such a short sighted region?


At the very least, build it to Arbutus at least. I don't even understand how there's a debate over that. Building to UBC is certainly debatable given the cost, but even Arbutus is too much for some people? Really???

Personally I'd love to see it built to UBC as well. But I accept it being built to Arbutus. But and here is the but. If they do only build it to Arbutus. Build it so that if they ever wanted to extend they could easily extend the tunnel from the Arbutus station if it ever was needed. Basically don't just end the track right at the end of the station build beyond it and have the ability drop a TBM down without disrupting the train service.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Personally I'd love to see it built to UBC as well. But I accept it being built to Arbutus. But and here is the but. If they do only build it to Arbutus. Build it so that if they ever wanted to extend they could easily extend the tunnel from the Arbutus station if it ever was needed. Basically don't just end the track right at the end of the station build beyond it and have the ability drop a TBM down without disrupting the train service.

And to me possible even more important, don't go and build an LRT from Arbutus to UBC, or even particularly involved BRT infrastructure. Anything short of UBC is, and should be considered, a first phase.

[Hot Rod]

^ totally agreed. It MUST be SkyTrain all the way to UBC (and maybe even have two+ stops in the UBC area).

Is there a bigger single transit draw for the Vancouver Metropolitan Region (besides downtown and MAYBE YVR airport) than UBC?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

And to me possible even more important, don't go and build an LRT from Arbutus to UBC, or even particularly involved BRT infrastructure. Anything short of UBC is, and should be considered, a first phase.

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

^ totally agreed. It MUST be SkyTrain all the way to UBC (and maybe even have two+ stops in the UBC area).

Is there a bigger single transit draw for the Vancouver Metropolitan Region (besides downtown and MAYBE YVR airport) than UBC?

You got it! In years to come, this will be the horizontal portion of the "backbone" of Vancouver city underground rail, rather the way that the Kennedy - to - Kipling line is in Toronto. It's essential that it be top notch, fast, and capacious enough to endure the population swell that the city is experiencing, and will continue to experience for decades to come.

[Xerx]

Has anyone else noticed that translink has posted stakeholder meeting minutes?

UBC-UEL Combined Stakeholder Workshop Minutes
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...nutes/UBC%20UEL%20Stakeholder%20Min.ashx

Combined Broadway Corridor Stakeholder Workshop Minutes
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...utes/Combined%20Broadway%20Corridor.ashx

Regional Stakeholder Workshop Minutes
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Document...inutes/Regional%20Stakeholder%20Min.ashx

(interesting note: someone in the Broadway stakeholder brings up the 400,000 number they say is needed to support skytrain.)

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Xerx

(interesting note: someone in the Broadway stakeholder brings up the 400,000 number they say is needed to support skytrain.)

I think our current skytrain network sure exceeds 400,000 riders (a day) in next few years, or once Evergreen line built.

If you look at line-by-line basis, many heavy subway "line" of 10km or more in dense Asia city do not have close to 400,000 riders too. People need to look at the whole transit network together.

[deasine]

I'm not sure how this is relevant:

I am concerned and am in opposition to use of development to fund transit based on the Hong Kong model. It is a conflict of interest for TransLink to be a transportation planner, developer, and do land planning. TransLink shouldn’t be able to use the Metro Vancouver growth strategy to influence municipal plans; land use planning around transit lines should be community driven, with TransLink input into that process.

The quality, if lack of a better word, of the conversation just took a bungee jump down on page four.

[Millennium2002]

TransLink should have the ability to develop properties at or near SkyTrain stations to encourage ridership regardless of community plans that might say otherwise. It is unfair to say that TransLink can not increase its revenue + ridership with this method and instead must be dependent on the mercy of the local city councils. The only case where I think this should not apply is in communities with historical/cultural significance.

[Xerx]

looks like Business and Residents for Sustainable Transit Alternatives is one of the groups against skytrain and translink's real estate division.
http://westvancouver.ca/uploadedFiles/Yo...nd_Minutes/2009/October/09oct19-cc17.pdf

[SpongeG]

that would be nice but the people who own next door are the ones who oppose it - I bet the city of Vancouver would love to develop the station areas and probably looks jealously at burnaby, new west and surrey, the only reason joyce area took off was the city was able to turn an old industrial warehouse area into a dense neighbourhood - nanaimo, broadway, 29th avenue will always be the same as they are now well in our lifetime i think anyway - its been over 20 years now and we haven't seen much of anything change - meanwhile the suburbs have used it to their advantage and embraced and built up its stations - same is going to happen with the canada line, i think the only areas that will grow up are marine drive and oakridge - possibly cambie - king edward but that will take decades

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by Xerx

looks like Business and Residents for Sustainable Transit Alternatives is one of the groups against skytrain and translink's real estate division.
http://westvancouver.ca/uploadedFiles/Yo...nd_Minutes/2009/October/09oct19-cc17.pdf

Apropos of the graphic on the final page of that report, it still puzzles me how an LRT system down Broadway is any better than what we have now. First, the cost of an LRT system down Broadway would be nowhere close to $360 million, and it wouldn't move many more passengers than the B-line currently moves. Finally, you simply will not have people choose this over using their cars.

[SpongeG]

i think there would - i think skytrain to granville is fine enough

treat UBC as a smaller city based of transit instead of regional and than shoot the idiots who founded such an important univerity in the middle of nowhere lol

[nname]

Originally Posted by Xerx

interesting note: someone in the Broadway stakeholder brings up the 400,000 number they say is needed to support skytrain.

Hmm... 400,000 over 12.5km is about 32,000 passenger per km.

Lets see...
Toronto Subway = 18,400 per km = waste of money
Montreal Metro = 15,200 per km = waste of money
New York Subway = 7,600 per km = waste of money
Washington Metrorail = 5,600 per km = waste of money
Mexico City Metro = 25,000 per km = waste of money
Hong Kong MTR = 21,500 per km = waste of money
Shanghai Metro = 8,400 per km = waste of money
Guangzhou Metro = 12,000 per km = waste of money
Beijing Subway = 17,500 per km = waste of money
Taipei MRT = 14,600 per km = waste of money
Singapore MRT = 15,300 per km = waste of money
Tokyo Metro = 28,300 per km = waste of money
Osaka Subway = 17,400 per km = waste of money
Seoul Subway = 10,600 per km = waste of money
London Underground = 8,500 per km = waste of money
Paris Metro = 21,000 per km = waste of money
Moscow Metro = 23,500 per km = waste of money
....

Well, maybe some individual lines would pass his target, but for the entire system.. only a few would come anywhere close. So none of these systems should be built? I don't know where he come up with this kind of number...

[nname]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

Apropos of the graphic on the final page of that report, it still puzzles me how an LRT system down Broadway is any better than what we have now. First, the cost of an LRT system down Broadway would be nowhere close to $360 million, and it wouldn't move many more passengers than the B-line currently moves. Finally, you simply will not have people choose this over using their cars.

Well, from the report, it assume the cost of vehicle is 55.5M in total. Given a LRT car cost about 4M each, that's barely enough to get us 14 cars, or 7 2-car trains. With 1 spare train, that's 6 trains for the 1.5 hours round-trip, or a 15-minutes headway, with a system capacity of 1,400 pphpd.. Ha!

[Xerx]

zweisystem says he got it from a Patrick Condon study. Jarrett Walker reply's in his blog

Zwei, I'm sorry, but an abstract rule about a particular daily ridership that justifies metro is absolute nonsense. It depends entirely on how much the grade separation costs and over how much distance. The ridership outcomes, in turn, depend on the size of the total travel market and the travel time of the service compared to the alternatives. Surface systems have less access times but grade-separated systems can have a better in-vehicle travel time. Grade separated systems thus end up being faster except for very short trips, i.e. the local bus or streetcar market.

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/05/is-e...mment-6a00d83454714d69e20120a79be45f970b
(zweisystem's comment is directly above)

[mr.x]

From zwei:

The trouble with dealing with the subway lobby is the the many conflicting websites, with conflicting numbers.

And that's not in the local context, rather in the global context.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

TransLink should have the ability to develop properties at or near SkyTrain stations to encourage ridership regardless of community plans that might say otherwise. It is unfair to say that TransLink can not increase its revenue + ridership with this method and instead must be dependent on the mercy of the local city councils. The only case where I think this should not apply is in communities with historical/cultural significance.

That is a great point Allan and seems like an obvious choice to not only help Translink make money off of the development side, but also it would almost assuredly increase the ridership numbers. But off course your idea has way to much logic to it and therefore cannot happen.

[mooks28]

Zweisystem is a tram fanboy. Nothing's gonna sway him from his views and all the power to him. He's one voice out of how many out of the lower mainland? Throw a rock in this town and hit an unemployed urban planner...

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by mooks28

Zweisystem is a tram fanboy. Nothing's gonna sway him from his views and all the power to him. He's one voice out of how many out of the lower mainland? Throw a rock in this town and hit an unemployed urban planner...

The problem is that he seems to be unemployed, so he has lots of time to lurk the internet and write to the papers and some who don't know better actually listen and learn from him.