Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[CLC]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, if they built it like the original proposal for evergreen line, then no, it would most likely be slower than the B-Line.
- LRT would have more stops than B-Line
- B-Line can go over the speed limit, especially the stretch going into UBC. LRT has to obey speed limit no matter what.
- B-Line does not have to stop when no one is getting on/off. LRT have to stop at every single station.
- Some major intersections would not have signal priority (as they did in Evergreen Line). Worst of all, the station is AFTER the intersection (for the left-turn lanes), meaning that the train would have to stop TWICE - similar to current B-Line.

very good points made, completely agree, the first 2 points alone would certainly make LRT slower than B-Line.
One thing for sure, LRT is guaranteed to be always BEHIND SCHEDULE if it got built on Broadway. Be prepared to late for your UBC class our next generations (if LRT lobbists win)

[nname]

Originally Posted by CLC

It is scary to think that this ridership will be quite concentrated on class-session weekdays for specific hours. What kind of frequency would be needed in peak? supposed 2-car trains?

The "money-losing" Hong kong light rail now achieve 1.3 minutes (serviced by combined routes at some stops) frequency at peak. Any at-grade light rail can really have less than 1 minute frequency? That would be needed for Broadway!

Well, assume my assumption holds true for 130,000/day and the pattern is similar to the 99 B-Line, then it would have close to 3 times the ridership of 99 in 2007. The maximum flow of 99 is 12,000 per direction, multiply by 3 gives 36,000, or exactly 66% of the volume of Expo Line between Broadway and Main Street. Given the capacity of 12,000 pphpd on that line at that time, the minimum capacity of 8,000 would be need. So if we made it Canada Line-like full, probably require a start-up capacity of 10,000pphpd? If a LRT car holds 162 passengers, then 62 cars would be needed - so the frequency needed to be every 3 minutes using 3-cars train or every 4 minutes using 4-cars train. About 125 cars would be needed for the line.

[Metro-One]

His reply to my comment, it is funny:

Zweisystem replies: “But it is obvious that SkyTrain is the right choice for Broadway.” I ask why? Will the Broadway route carry over 20,000 pphpd? For that is the criteria that supported a subway decision. What you fail to understand is that the Madrid Metro was started in 1919 and continues today. Like Paris, the regional conurbation is very heavily populated, with a regional population of over 7 million people. Put another way, the regional population of Madrid is equal to the provinces of BC and Alberta and thus has the population to support a larger metropolitan railway.

The Madrid LRT is 21st century transportation and Spanish transit planners are looking for cheaper alternatives to very expensive metro construction and the soon to be expanded Madrid LRT fits in well with regional transportation planning.

Your post is full of inaccuracies and wrong assumptions that it becomes rather redundant. In Europe, the push is to stop building grade separated transit systems, in favour of on-street/at-grade LRT and in Asian where cities have masses of population then metro is the only choice for transit planners.

Accident on LRT systems happen, but LRT is one of the safest transit modes in the world and how conveniently you omit that SkyTrain’s annual death rate is mush higher than comparable light rail systems.

As stated before, building LRT on Broadway would be far easier than many would think, because it would be just reinstating the streetcar, a 21st century streetcar in the form of light rail. The engineering has all been done, it is just under a few cm. of asphalt.

What Rail for the Valley should be concerned about is that the cost of a SkyTrain subway (about $3 billion to $4 billion) would suck away precious transit monies from regional transit projects to fund another politically prestigious subway project in Vancouver.

Did you know that subways are very poor in attracting new ridership, especially the motorist from the car?

[Metro-One]

And here is what I had to say:

I would highly debate that subways are unattractive to attracting new riders, And if you hate subways so much, then lets go with elevated skytrain along Broadway.

The only reason I take skytrain, and along with almost everyone I know, is because it is fast and frequent. There is a huge reason why the most used LRT systems in North America are primarily grade separated. What street grade LRT is good for, is local service involving trips under a few KM, not cross regional! That is where metro/ALRT/heavy rail comes into use, such as skytrain to UBC.

If they do not attract new riders than how come many people I know want to see more Park and Rides at skytrain stations so they can finally take the train to work and downtown? Face it, on a day in and day out practice speed and frequency is important.

I also noticed you failed to mention that skytrain’s fatality rate is due to suicides. there has never been a fatality due to a train accident. Street grade LRT systems have to deal with suicides and accident fatalities! Again, you also forgot how to mitigate car accidents that do not involve the trains themsleves, but block the rails.

Also, please tell me your solution about the short blocks along Broadway, this limits train lengths (for trains can not block intersections at a station) therefore reducing capacity.

Again, I support LRT to the Valley, for i think LRT can work in the Valley because there is lots of land to build at grade rails for cheep that do not run along roadways (again, this would make it more akin to a heavy rail) at the prices you are listing. But LRT down Broadway, no thanks, if LRT is built there, and it means I have to do an extra transfer from skytrain to LRT (that would likely have a much less frequent schedule) to travel only slightly faster than the current B-line, I think I will stick with driving my car there. At least then I can circumnavigate accidents and listen to my stereo system.

Many European cities are now concentrating on LRT systems because they have fully built metro systems! And in fact, are still expanding on their metro systems in many cities. Layers, LAYERS!

And the price for urban LRT with the speed and capacity of skytrain will be a similar price as skytrain itself.

As I said before, Calgary’s next LRT expansion is going to coast 700 million for 8km. hmmmmm, that seems a little more than 25 mil per km. (and this does not include the construction of an OMC)

And as for ridership, here are some new examples of new, primarily street grade LRTs in NA.

Houston – 12km, daily ridership of 39,500. And, from Jan 1 2004 to April 15, 2006 (only a year and a quarter) there were 129 accidents!

Seattle – 27.8 km (with a price tag similar to the Canada Line I believe) has a daily ridership of 16, 200! Tacoma’s small separate section, only 3,900 a day!

Phoenix – 32km at a cost of 1.4 billion, 33,554. Also, it costs 184 million a year to operate this single line.

Seems like LRT does not attract a load of ridership everywhere it goes! And trust me, many of these LRT lines are fed bus riders, just like any other system in the world, for that only makes sense.

Again, I could go on.

But I must say, I am one who supports skytrain to UBC and rail to the valley, but shame on you for trying to divide the pro transit groups with your personal hatred of skytrain and metro.

Ian


And this



I should also not that Vancouver is a geographically constrained location (Mountains to the North, Ocean to the West and the border/ALR land to the south (and east for ALR land)

Our Metro population is expected to reach 3 million in around 10 years, and the Broadway corridor is expected to grow (it is already one of the main commercial centers of our region) and UBC is one of our largest employees/destinations. Not to mention it would make a much more convenient transfer from the M line to the C line at Olympic village station.

So yes, we should build skytrain for Broadway, that is building infrastructure that will meet our demands for many decades (and skytrain with 80m platforms, no 40m platforms). It is very concievable that in the near future the Broadway skytrain could have 20 000ppdph.

LRT would be a temporary band aid solution. (look at Calgary where they are now planning on burying part of their section downtown, that is building something twice, which is far more expensive than building it right once.

Ian

[CLC]

^ I guess your newest reply may not get pass his censor

Recently Zewi did not mention C-Train often for obvious reason, but points to the Europe small cities' examples where people are much difficult to find their real cost.

[mooks28]

Haha, I think he's just baiting you guys now

It's pretty clear he's a tram fanboy and for him it's probably the solution for everything. Traffic jams? Trams. Lack of dense neighbourhoods? Trams. Trams, trams, trams...

He probably dreams about trams and has pictures of them on his wall. I don't think arguing with him is particularly productive as he's obviously made up his mind.

[Metro-One]

It is not arguing with him I care about, but the people who read is blog/page who don't know much about transit who could fall into his extreme propaganda are who I am worried about!

[deasine]

Well to this day, he still hasn't responded to Adrian's post on Human Transit... http://www.humantransit.org/2009/05/is-e...mment-6a00d83454714d69e20120a79be45f970b

It just shows that he will continue saying what he has to say. The issue is right now, these LRT fanatics have the media behind them.

[jlousa]

Instead of trying to convince him (no one will) you would be better pressed playing the same game he does. Write an email about why skytrain is better with proof and send it to every newspaper you can. The newspapers print his stuff because he constantly bombards them with letters. Do the same and beat him at his own game.

[Metro-One]

That is a good point, but to be honest, I am always afraid to do so because i am afraid one of my facts or figures will be incorrect, and then they can call me on it.

[Xerx]

you know, he does occasionally visit this site.

On a rare visit to the Skyscraper blog, where SkyTrain’s strongest supporters reside, one feels sad that the SkyTrain lobby dwells so much in the past and has missed the tram, so to speak. Misinformation reigns supreme as the SkyTrain loyalists desperately try to rewrite history to suit there own ends. Take away the name calling, innuendo, and the hundreds of pages devoted to SkyTrain become very thin gruel indeed.

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/20...10-planning-transit-for-the-next-decade/

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That is a good point, but to be honest, I am always afraid to do so because i am afraid one of my facts or figures will be incorrect, and then they can call me on it.

This concern does not hinder him one bit, so why should it hinder the rest of us?

[Metro-One]

In my academic work and my job I am a perfectionist, hehe. Also, it is just because he is so keen on manipulating anything to his own bidding. Honestly, the man must be a politician, haha

[Metro-One]

I love this reply of his:

Zweisystem replies: The subject of subways have been studied far more than you realize and it was the phenomenon in Europe in the 60’s & 70’s, where surface tramway’s were abandoned and subways built in their stead, ridership on public transit dropped.

Excuse me, it is not a personal hatred of SkyTrain or metro, but rather a quest for affordable transit. Subways are very expensive and if subways do not carry about 400,000 passengers a day or more, they will be heavily subsidized, meaning higher taxes and levies.

Did you know that SkyTrain has less potential capacity than light rail? No, well I bet you do not know a whole lot. I tire of this SkyTrain for Vancouver and LRT for the rest mentality that has surfaced. The fact is, to be successful, public transit must be affordable, easy to use, and available, yet despite an over $8 billion investment in SkyTrain and metro, there is absolutely no evidence of a modal shift from car to transit; TransLink is near financial collapse and regional TransLink taxes are set to increase dramatically. This to provide a service that only 12% to 13% of the regional population use. I’m sorry but your arguments are not based on fact, but make believe.

I also remind you that US practice is to quote the total cost of a transit project over a financial lifetime (40 to 50 year bonds), while in Vancouver we use direct costs and the taxpayer does not know what the total cost of our SkyTrain and RAV metro network.


Notice how he does not directly remark on any of the negative figures I posted about LRTs, or the fact that any of the high capacity/high ridership LRTs are more akin to skytrain in ROW than the tram he wants

I really dont care if he visits this site, he is more than welcome to debate it here as well as far as I am concerned.


And here is his next come back:

Zweisystem replies: You forget one important item, businesses are moving out of Vancouver and into cheaper regions ill served by transit. High ridership on SkyTrain is an illusion of a mass transfer 80% of bus passengers onto the metro. This and heavily subsidized ticketing (U-Pass) has skewed real ridership numbers and revenue for TransLink. Have you not noticed, TransLink is in severe financial stress and can barely keep the present operating schedule. As I said before but the SkyTrain lobby remains deaf, you can build all the metro you want, but if it does not carry sufficient passenger loads to justify construction, be prepared to pay higher taxes to subsidies it. Has taxes rise, businesses move away to take advantage of lower rents and taxes, generally to areas ill served by transit.

Supporting SkyTrain, is just supporting new highway construction.

That part made me laugh out loud!

Honestly, everyone on this forum should lambaste him with comments.

Out forum is a pretty good cross section of personalities found in a cite, we have a wide range on the political spectrum here (from far left to far right) and the vast majority of us support skytrain to UBC, and if I remeber correctly nearly all of us at least support it to the C-line.

But, to be honest, i think I am personally done posting on his page. I don't feel like running his circles forever. the guy obviously has no idea how a good, layered transit system works. I especially love how he says 80% of ridership on skytrain comes from buses, but even if that is true, is that not how almost all rail systems work? Is it not possible that the majority of people on those buses would normally drive if it were not for skytrain, because I know many people who can only tollerate a bus ride for local stretches, not regional.

And if we build LRT will we not have buses feeding into that akin to the skytrain? Why would it be any different than LRT. If anything, skytrain and full metros attract more non transit users to use transit than a slow, delayed LRT.

[Whalleyboy]

Example Karlsruhe Germany: trams in pairs operate headways of 45 seconds during peak hours through the main street, gives a peak hour capacity of about 36,000 pphpd! (45 second headways = 80 trips per hour X 450 the capacity of two trams in MU) This is tremendous 'lift' from a simple tram system.

okay i am confused by this cause in my mind it doesnt work in anyway along broadway
If trains where traveling that close together with priority lighting wouldnt that make like almost no chance for people traveling in north south to get past that street?
so besides limited length wouldnt that have to have max on the min time gap to still leave room for people to get past broadway?

[Metro-One]

Also don't forget about pedestrians crossing, and left turn signals.

Also, wouldn't such a tram system require a lot of train sets, therefore a large OMC in an areas where land is very expensive? (not to mention the cost of so many trains)

It seems so simple that Broadway is not the place for street grade LRT! It hurts to even debate it now.

[Whalleyboy]

heres my thoughts how it would work
no left turns for you!
pedestrians better hope they can run fast and watch there step so they dont trip and fall on the track
and as for the omc with expensive land thats just obvious i mean they could always destroy some of that forest area around ubc=P

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

okay i am confused by this cause in my mind it doesnt work in anyway along broadway
If trains where traveling that close together with priority lighting wouldnt that make like almost no chance for people traveling in north south to get past that street?
so besides limited length wouldnt that have to have max on the min time gap to still leave room for people to get past broadway?

I think no one here has seen Karlsruhe Germany trams in real life. But TTC streetcar is also extremely frequent, which has route close to every 1 minute at peak. Certainly it is workable for pedestrian crossing arrangement. I also stated Hong kong light rail has 1.3-minutes peak frequency going through particular stops (along Yuen Long main road, as busy as Broadway here)

In general , frequency and capacity issue is not good enough argument against light rail.

[Metro-One]

Delays, accidents, and speed certainly are. And it is also much easier to obtain such frequency and capacity with a grade separated system down such a busy corridor, so they still are valid arguments. For it reduces capacity for other vehicles and even pedestrians, given how narrow the street is, to accommodate 2 lanes or rail + stations.

Remember, if one really needs to they can use a cucumber for light (if plugged into a lamp), but a light bulb works so much easier.

Also, it seems silly to have a system where one accident will cause all local, regional and vehicle transit to stall. If there is skytrain and buses used along Broadway, then regional transit will not be effected by an accident and local buses can simply circumnavigate the accident.

Again, well designed cities have layers!

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

okay i am confused by this cause in my mind it doesnt work in anyway along broadway
If trains where traveling that close together with priority lighting wouldnt that make like almost no chance for people traveling in north south to get past that street?
so besides limited length wouldnt that have to have max on the min time gap to still leave room for people to get past broadway?

Replying to Zweisystem, who wrote:

Example Karlsruhe Germany: trams in pairs operate headways of 45 seconds during peak hours through the main street, gives a peak hour capacity of about 36,000 pphpd! (45 second headways = 80 trips
per hour X 450 the capacity of two trams in MU) This is tremendous 'lift' from a simple tram system.

Just as I suspected, zweisystem is once again either fabricating facts or trying to mislead. In Zagreb there's a street that runs through the centre of the city leading to and away from the main square, The street is mostly pedestrianised and many different tram lines converge on that 1.5 km or so length of street. It's not like there a 15-km length of track along which there are 45-second headways the whole of the length.

Link

Around 2km of track including several junctions through Karlsruhe city centre run east-west along Kaiserstrasse, the main shopping street. Largely pedestrianised, the section carries an intensive service of tram-trains and trams due to the convergence of many routes. This has effectively become a limiting factor on further system enlargements.


Under the 'City 2015' banner, KVV subsidiary Karlsruher Schieneninfrastruktur-Gesellschaft mbH (KASIG, constituted May 2003) is promoting the construction of a tunnel with a southern branch from Marktplatz to Augartenstrasse to carry much of this traffic, with tram routes remaining at grade. Estimated to cost €500m, this major infrastructure project, which also contains some new road tunnels, would return the centre more to pedestrians and significantly increase rail capacity.

Although a development that has encountered resistance, KASIG plans for construction to begin by 2010 for a 2015 completion.

And the population of Karlsruhe? 275,000.