Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[CLC]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

Exactly. That's why the combo option doesn't really makes sense to me at all. I took 99B (on Jan 5th) ... So I think ridership to/from UBC on the Broadway, as stated on this thread, is pretty underestimated. Besides the students/faculty/staff, don't forget the residents themselves living at UBC. UBC serves the entire region, and transit link to the UEL needs to be fast and efficient in order to increase transit share.

....

Capacity-wise light rail is not an issue, there is some heavy-duty LRT system in the biggest cities of the world. Even BRT (only the completely-dedicated-lanes-all-the-way one) should have capacity that can handle future UBC volume.

Regarding the speed, we still don't know how the (at-street) LRT alignment, stations spacings, etc. would setup, but no doubt in my mind it is extremely difficult to construct LRT "properly" to give a significant-faster-than-99b and reliable service.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by nname

RRT should be VCC to UBC, right? Unless you mean option 4A...

Fixed that sorry. 4A + 4B

[jsbertram]

None of the LRT options indicates where the Operations and Maintenance centre will be located. And it's a 3rd incompatible rail system in the city.

I suspect a purpose of LRT west of Arbutus is to get the 'creme de la creme' all worked up about trains running up & down 10th Ave (or elevated over 10th Ave) and a compromise will be found - Skytrain Tunnel on the entire route, and everyone within the Broadway Corridor (as shown on the maps from 4th Ave to 16th Ave) west of Arbutus will get a "Rapid Transit Improvements" tax on their properties to cover the extra costs of tunneling from Arbutus to UBC.

Some PR smoothie will give it a better name so it doesn't feel like a tax.

[jsbertram]

This line is the continuation of the M-Line from VCC-Clark, and was always expected to be Skytrain (underground or elevated).

When combined with Evergreen, this will become the main East-West rapid transit trunk line between UBC and Coquitlam, with other forms of transit having transfers to and from it (B-Line buses from east of Coquitlam; All the north-south bus routes in Burnaby and Vancouver; C-Line at City Hall; Arbutus Corridor Streetcar).

To have it any less will reduce the effectiveness of getting people out of cars & on to buses, streetcars and Skytrain.

I'm surprised I haven't seen someone suggest a Skytrain Tunnel to Main St with 98B for the rest of the route to UBC. When the next bucket of cash arrives, extend the tunnel to Cambie & City Hall (and move the 99B terminus). As each chunk of cash arrives (magically tied to an election, no doubt), extend the tunnel to Granville, then to Arbutus, then to Alma, then to Sasamat (moving the 99B terminus each time).

By the time this is done in 50 years, we can take the Skytrain to UBC to watch our grandchildren graduate.

Or we can go FULL BORE (pun intended) and do this right - VCC Clark to UBC as tunneled Skytrain. Nothing less, no compromises.

[PROSTSHOCKER]

I wonder if the UBC extension would make an additional stop to the proposed central Emily Carr campus on False Creek Flats. Currently there is no suitable link to that area in question.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by PROSTSHOCKER

I wonder if the UBC extension would make an additional stop to the proposed central Emily Carr campus on False Creek Flats. Currently there is no suitable link to that area in question.

If you are talking about RRT extension, yes the stop is at Finning/GNW.

[cabotp]

I'm picking option 4B. For the simple fact that I want to see less people on the 41 and 49 routes.

[OhioGuy]

I thought it had been talked about before here on SSP about the possibility of constructing the line under 10th Ave? (or was it 8th Ave?) That way the cheaper cut & cover approach could be used without severly disrupting the businesses on Broadway? Is that being considered?

[djh]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I thought it had been talked about before here on SSP about the possibility of constructing the line under 10th Ave? (or was it 8th Ave?) That way the cheaper cut & cover approach could be used without severly disrupting the businesses on Broadway? Is that being considered?

That point needs to remain front and centre in all discussions of a grade-separated line along Broadway. The (uneducated) public would love the idea of the route, but would fear the disruption of "digging up Broadway like Cambie was". We need to keep reminding everybody that Cut and Cover down 10th will not bankrupt businesses. It will slightly inconvenience a very small percentage of the regional population, for a while. They will all still be able to get to their houses through their alleys so it's not that bad.

BTW, I bet it would be pretty easy to calculate how many households would be affected, by averaging the number of houses per block, and the number of blocks from VCC to UBC...

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Right now Metropolis at Metrotown and Station Square have different owners, so I can't see them co-operating very much in having one mall directly attached to the other. The closest I can see them doing is have a pedestrian walkway to connect the two - but better than than the open-air version that runs from the Station Square Theatres over the Bus Loop and into the Metrotown mall doors and tower lobbies.

Just like when Metropolis at Metrotown was originally Metrotown Centre and Eaton Centre who were competing malls with separate owners, there was just a simple pedestrian walkway between the two malls. Now that these are owned by the came company, it was easy to build a connector building that has a wider mall and actual stores like "Armani Exchange" and "Mexx" so they don't feel like separate malls.

If the owners of either mall get into financial difficulties and have to sell some assets, then all these metrotown malls could find themselves under one owner, making it easier to have everything joined together as 'Mega-Metrotown'

Yes that's why I proposed using the old TGIF site as a link(connector)

That's only if all of Station Square is redeveloped to become more like a Mall and not a strip mall.

[racc]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I thought it had been talked about before here on SSP about the possibility of constructing the line under 10th Ave? (or was it 8th Ave?) That way the cheaper cut & cover approach could be used without severly disrupting the businesses on Broadway? Is that being considered?

No, because cut and cover is not necessarily cheaper than boring a tunnel. The reason it was used on Cambie is so they could guarantee completion by the Olympics. If cut and cover is behind schedule, they can just start digging and building the tunnel in another place at the same time to speed it up. This can't be done with cut and cover.

[red-paladin]

4B or not 4B, that is the question!

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

None of the LRT options indicates where the Operations and Maintenance centre will be located.

Probably somewhere in the railway lands south of Pacific Central.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

And it's a 3rd incompatible rail system in the city.

Yes, thats true, but we're going to be getting light rail of some kind eventually on at least the streetcar portion. For the combined proposal at least this isn't a huge problem. Certainly no more of a complication here than on the C-Line, and probably less problematic in the long term; C-Line is going to be great fun when vehicle replacement comes around.*

I voted for Skytrain all the way, but whatever the combo proposal is, it isn't idiotic system design on the order of LRT Evergreen or the SRT (now there's a bit of technological irony in a discussion of Vancouver).

*Frankly, I can almost guarantee that one thing or another about the C-Line's design WILL bite us in the next 20-30 years (and not necessarily because it's a horrible line, but there are SO MANY oddities and incompatibilities with the rest of the system), be it train size, unique technology, single track, etc. It does look like the trains won't be OVERLY hard to get though, they seem to be pretty standard sized rapid transit cars in very short trains.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Probably somewhere in the railway lands south of Pacific Central.

That will probably be the case. I could see a LRT yard below, with apartments built above, similar to the rail depots for the MTRC. It would be a prime real estate opportunity, especially since it is close to many modes of transit and close to the Olympic Village.

What I find weird is that there is are two options for RRT Option 4, one which is the logical extension from VCC, the other is from Commercial. Cost wise, it doesn't seem to make any sense to build it from Commercial, if you ask me, since you are essentially tunneling more, adding to the project cost. Moreover, the configuration at Commercial-Broadway would be hard to execute and plan for, and Commercial wasn't designed as a station for future extension west; VCC was.

I'm starting to actually wonder if the 4A proposal is to build a separate RRT system (i.e. Canada Line). And if that's the case, I'm vehemently opposed as that really defeats the purpose of having the RRT, to prevent transfers from the first place.

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Yes, thats true, but we're going to be getting light rail of some kind eventually on at least the streetcar portion. For the combined proposal at least this isn't a huge problem. Certainly no more of a complication here than on the C-Line, and probably less problematic in the long term; C-Line is going to be great fun when vehicle replacement comes around.*

I voted for Skytrain all the way, but whatever the combo proposal is, it isn't idiotic system design on the order of LRT Evergreen or the SRT (now there's a bit of technological irony in a discussion of Vancouver).

*Frankly, I can almost guarantee that one thing or another about the C-Line's design WILL bite us in the next 20-30 years (and not necessarily because it's a horrible line, but there are SO MANY oddities and incompatibilities with the rest of the system), be it train size, unique technology, single track, etc. It does look like the trains won't be OVERLY hard to get though, they seem to be pretty standard sized rapid transit cars in very short trains.

I don't think incompatibility is an issue at all. We have to realize that in almost every major system in the world, many of the trains aren't designed to run on other lines. As much as all the trains look exactly the same on the Hong Kong MTR, it's actually different. Same case for the London Underground and Paris Metro.

What will be a problem is the limited platform length extension and single tracking.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

I thought it had been talked about before here on SSP about the possibility of constructing the line under 10th Ave? (or was it 8th Ave?) That way the cheaper cut & cover approach could be used without severly disrupting the businesses on Broadway? Is that being considered?

After the Cambie Big Dig surprise, City Council passed a resolution that the rapid transit project along Broadway corridor would NOT be cut & cover.

With the rejection of elevated on Broadway as well, Council has essentially mandated that it will be built using TBM tunneling equipment - similar to what was used to build the Canada Line from 2nd Ave, north under False Creek, west under Davie St, curve to north under Granville to Hastings.

The 'cut and cover' that was done downtown was the only way the Vancouver Centre Station could be built - dig up the block of Granville between Georgia and Robson to get to the tunnels made by the TBM.

Photo credit to "Tafyrn & Seamora" at canadalinephotos.blogspot.com
(thanks too for not being afraid of heights)

Digging out the Vancouver Centre Station to reveal the first finished TBM tube (outbound to YVR / Richmond)



Chipping out the rings that make up the TBM tube (outbound to YVR / Richmond)




With the tunnel rings removed, level out the bottom of the station, and start building it's foundations




Although this block of Granville was a construction mess, the rest of Granville south of Robson was 'business as usual' even while the TBM was working under the street. The local businesses were hurting because the normal bus traffic was moved over to Howe or Seymour during construction, but this was because of the need to use the full width of Granville to dig out the pit for building the stations; the rest of Granville Street and Davie Street were not dug up to build the tunnels -as was done using 'Cut and Cover' for the full length of Cambie from 2nd Ave to 74th Ave.

Using a TBM under 10th Ave could be done the same way. ie: at City Hall, only the block of 10th Ave between Cambie and Yukon would have to be dug up to get down to the subway tubes and build the new station. The nearby blocks east of Yukon & west of Cambie may be inconvenienced with the station construction and the detour around this one block, but those nearby streets are still usable for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles.

Using 10th Ave as the route also means minimal inconvenience on Broadway itself during construction.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

*Frankly, I can almost guarantee that one thing or another about the C-Line's design WILL bite us in the next 20-30 years (and not necessarily because it's a horrible line, but there are SO MANY oddities and incompatibilities with the rest of the system), be it train size, unique technology, single track, etc. It does look like the trains won't be OVERLY hard to get though, they seem to be pretty standard sized rapid transit cars in very short trains.

The frequency and platform size are obviously constrained. But don't forget one of the cheapest and most effective tool to increase capacity is removal of seats. My conservative estimate is that canceling at least half of seats may hold up to to 100 more people per 2-car train-set.

[The_Henry_Man]

Originally Posted by CLC

The frequency and platform size are obviously constrained. But don't forget one of the cheapest and most effective tool to increase capacity is removal of seats. My conservative estimate is that canceling at least half of seats may hold up to to 100 more people per 2-car train-set.

Or have the seating arrangements longitudinally, like the ones on the HK MTR. That just makes total sense.

[trofirhen]

Great to see that nearly 80 per cent of voters choose underground rapid rail as their option of the type of transport to UBC.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by The_Henry_Man

Or have the seating arrangements longitudinally, like the ones on the HK MTR. That just makes total sense.

The London Underground seating is like that, too. So is the Seoul subway system (although their trains are massive anyway)

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by Locked In

Is this the first time Translink has given consideration to doing LRT on the downtown streetcar route? Seems promising if it's even on the table.

Anyways, I'd settle for the Combination Alternative, though it would be nice it if it was part of a phased approach to grade-separated rail all the way to UBC.


Source: Translink

I would prefer to see skytrain all the way but i could settle for this
the one transfer on all routes current routes is a nice idea