Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[gillty]

Originally Posted by deasine

http://www.translink.ca/forums

http://www.translink.ca/forum

[The_Henry_Man]

Post deleted. Double post

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by usog

Wait, what? Tripplanner is actually not used that much? Everyone I know uses it at least occasionally. Or is just my generation

I got a email from accounting wondering why I was SMSing so much on the company phone - Perhaps I'm impatient or just addicted to needing the Next Bus info while waiting at the stop.

No prob with accounting once they realised SMS is free on our corporate plans.

[racc]

Originally Posted by deasine

Scanning the comments, I see Patrick Condon's response is mainly about project cost and cost per person, which is a good point. But that brings up the question, why was 2.8 billion the figure that was quoted for the UBC Line?

Not that good. Condon is way off on his cost per rider number. Assuming an average of 90,000 riders per day, a financing cost of $200 million per year and operating of around $30 million, the cost per rider is between $5 and $6 dollars, not the $30 or whatever he said it was. This will go down as the number of riders increases to the point were it will likely be less than the system average of $3.44

The $2.8 billion was from the Provincial Transit Plan. Assuming the number of riders will be around 150,000 per, the cost per rider will on the UBC Line SkyTrain would be similar.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by racc

The $2.8 billion was from the Provincial Transit Plan. Assuming the number of riders will be around 150,000 per, the cost per rider will on the UBC Line SkyTrain would be similar.

The question is why was it quoted at $2.8 billion. That's $233 million/km, which is much higher than the Canada Line. I know the Canada Line was done cheaply, but I'm quite sure that the final cost is not as high as $2.8 billion. What justifies its high price?

[SpongeG]

TransLink mulls six options for Broadway

JEFF HODSON
METRO VANCOUVER
April 20, 2010 5:38 a.m.


jeff hodson/metro vancouver file photos

TransLink has launched a UBC Line rapid transit study to examine six different options, including buses, streetcars and rapid rail, for the future of the Broadway corridor.

TransLink is considering six different transit alternatives for future growth along Vancouver’s busy Broadway corridor.

Options for growth along the well-travelled arterial between Commercial Drive and the University of B.C include expanded bus service, SkyTrain and even streetcars, like the demonstration “Olympic Line” that connected the Canada Line to Granville Island during the 2010 Games.

“This is long overdue,” Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs said yesterday. “It’s great news that they’re getting it narrowed down.”

Alternatives that are being considered:

• Bus Rapid Transit that is separated from regular traffic and would have connections to SkyTrain and Canada Line.

• Streetcars along Broadway connecting to the Commercial Drive SkyTrain or along Great Northern Way to VCC-Clark.

• Streetcars down Broadway with two branches, one that snakes along the Olympic Line to Main Street-Science World and the other connecting with either Commercial Drive station or VCC-Clark.

• SkyTrain to UBC from either Commercial Drive, or an extension of the Millennium Line from VCC-Clark.

• A combination of SkyTrain from Commercial Drive to Arbutus and streetcar from Arbutus to UBC.

• Improving bus service without a major infrastructure investment.

Meggs said rapid transit through the Broadway business district would carry about 150,000 riders a day — more than the Canada Line and second only to the original Expo Line.

“We’ve postponed this investment longer than we really should have,” Meggs said.

TransLink spokeswoman Judy Rudin said the UBC Line rapid transit study is a first step that aims to consult with people about future transit planning along the corridor.

...

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/507069--translink-mulls-six-options-for-broadway

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Fully bored tunnel (which usually involved deeper stations depending on rock), larger stations, tie in with existing line, construction inflation, large trunk utilities running in and around the corridor.

Plus you never want to scope out your budget too small, or else you could get cancelled later.

[racc]

Originally Posted by deasine

The question is why was it quoted at $2.8 billion. That's $233 million/km, which is much higher than the Canada Line. I know the Canada Line was done cheaply, but I'm quite sure that the final cost is not as high as $2.8 billion. What justifies its high price?

I suspect partially because the station platforms will be at least 80 meters while the Canada Line platforms are are only 40m extendable to 50m. Also, a larger percentage of the stations would be underground which also increases costs.

Also, there would be construction cost escalation. I'm not sure what year dollars the UBC Line estimate is in. Assuming it is in 2009 dollars and the Canada Line is in 2005 dollars, that would account for some of the difference as well.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by racc

Also, there would be construction cost escalation. I'm not sure what year dollars the UBC Line estimate is in. Assuming it is in 2009 dollars and the Canada Line is in 2005 dollars, that would account for some of the difference as well.

I assumed it was primarily due to inflation and increased construction costs in 2009 dollars.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Yes, but in the current situation, it is much cheaper to increase capacity on the C-Line than the Expo Line. You can buy 10-15 more C-Trains for less than $200 million and thereby greatly increase the amount of capacity into downtown, without spending a cent on the stations or OMC.

By comparison, Expo Line needs all of its platforms extended in order to increase its capacity, at a cost of at least $100 million per station (and then you still need to buy rolling stock and OMC space). Remember that the cost previously announced for upgrading Expo Line is in the billions.

So you could definitely argue that the cheapest way to help Expo Line's busiest section is actually to extend Millennium Line over to the C-Line and encourage passengers to transfer there.

I suppose it could be cheaper to do some increases in C Line capacity (by adding more trains) however this would have to be renegotiated with the Private partner. Also, I think the OMC is already at capacity, so more trains would mean trains staged on-line or additional tracks added to the OMC. This would quickly escalate costs ahead of the planned schedule.

Also, I"m not sure the line can handle 10-15 more trains. The Rmd and YVR branches were cutting it pretty close during the Olympics with only 6 addt'l trains introduced to the system thanks to the single track.

[mezzanine]

IMO, i am very happy about the response to the broadway plans. Compared to the canada line, and even the evergreen line, the blogosphere is has a much more global thought to the proposed network. ppl are talking about mobility, frequnency and bus options and potential transfer problems, speed and planned ridership. people are also realizing how the evergreen line and canada line will affect this. we aren't talking about some polar discussion about LRT versus skytrain and overall response is more careful and measured, and not devolving into regionalism, marathon mode discussions and nazi-accusing.

and i want to reserve special thanks to human transit. IMO that blog and its theads have helped keep this discussion civil and fruitful. If you are reading this jarrett, many thanks!

As well, i'm glad to see a lot of the ssp'ers out on the blogosphere writing and posting. I would despair if the only public input was from patrick condon and mayor corrigan. thanks for all the effort, civility and keep up the advocacy!

[racc]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

I suppose it could be cheaper to do some increases in C Line capacity (by adding more trains) however this would have to be renegotiated with the Private partner. Also, I think the OMC is already at capacity, so more trains would mean trains staged on-line or additional tracks added to the OMC. This would quickly escalate costs ahead of the planned schedule.

Also, I"m not sure the line can handle 10-15 more trains. The Rmd and YVR branches were cutting it pretty close during the Olympics with only 6 addt'l trains introduced to the system thanks to the single track.

The basic problem is that there are three rapid transit lines outside of downtown feeding into two lines going downtown. This plus all the transferring from buses cause the segments of these lines, Broadway-Commercial to Main and Broadway-City Hall to Vancouver City Centre are the busiest sections of the lines leading to problematic load imbalances in the system.

I'm starting think the best solution is to extend the Millennium Line downtown via the Olympic Village, Granville Island and perhaps a tunnel under Burrard Street. The UBC Line would then be its own line which could be SkyTrain or a real metro like like the Canada Line (with bigger stations).

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by racc

The basic problem is that there are three rapid transit lines outside of downtown feeding into two lines going downtown. This plus all the transferring from buses cause the segments of these lines, Broadway-Commercial to Main and Broadway-City Hall to Vancouver City Centre are the busiest sections of the lines leading to problematic load imbalances in the system.

I'm starting think the best solution is to extend the Millennium Line downtown via the Olympic Village, Granville Island and perhaps a tunnel under Burrard Street. The UBC Line would then be its own line which could be SkyTrain or a real metro like like the Canada Line (with bigger stations).

I'd rather not see the continueity of the line from PoCo to UBC broken up like that. I would have thought that the streetcar would have made up for those overburdoned sections.

Or, why not have longer platforms under the busiest section along broadway (120 vs 80), and short-turn longer trains where the capacity demands it? Or outright build an extra pair of rail lines for that section, so you have a Broadway local line (Arbutus to Commercial-Broadway), and a UBC to PoCo line. Could even make one of the lines an "express" line during peak periods to allow even quicker commutes along the corridor.

[nname]

Originally Posted by deasine

The question is why was it quoted at $2.8 billion. That's $233 million/km, which is much higher than the Canada Line. I know the Canada Line was done cheaply, but I'm quite sure that the final cost is not as high as $2.8 billion. What justifies its high price?

To make the plan looks better? The same goes with the 3 billion or so Expo expansion and extension... I'm sure 3 billions would be enough to extend the Expo line all the way to Langley and White Rock!

[nname]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

Also, I"m not sure the line can handle 10-15 more trains. The Rmd and YVR branches were cutting it pretty close during the Olympics with only 6 addt'l trains introduced to the system thanks to the single track.

The train stopped for about 2 minutes in the terminus station during the Olympics, which is 36% of the 5.5 minutes headway between trains in each branch. I think 1.5 minutes can be saved here to reach 4 minutes headway and 28 active trains.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

I suppose it could be cheaper to do some increases in C Line capacity (by adding more trains) however this would have to be renegotiated with the Private partner. Also, I think the OMC is already at capacity, so more trains would mean trains staged on-line or additional tracks added to the OMC. This would quickly escalate costs ahead of the planned schedule.

Also, I"m not sure the line can handle 10-15 more trains. The Rmd and YVR branches were cutting it pretty close during the Olympics with only 6 addt'l trains introduced to the system thanks to the single track.

The Canada Line can definitely handle more trains...in total, about 40. With 32 in service, it can reach a 90-sec frequency in Vancouver and 3-minutes in YVR/Richmond (which is enough time to clear the single tracked sections).

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

In Portland I believe the study was less that 2% of system users ever used their online trip planning or next bus service (which was also available by phone). The number was used in the context to justify spending money to upgrade their next bus system to have physical displays at main stops and stations.

I don't think any system would really by far from that level in all respects. Even at 5% it would be a pretty tiny portion of ridership.

First off this is Vancouver not Portland. I don't give a shit what people do in Portland. No offense

On the topic of hardly anyone using the trip planner. A big reason is that for the vast majority of people they don't need to use the planner for their daily commute to and from work/school. They have done that commute countless times that they have a very good idea of the scheduled bus departures. Even I don't use the trip planner or next bus when going to work or coming back. As I know exactly what the scheduled departure times are.

Where I think you will see more usage is for those unknown trips. The ones that go off a route someone is used to. Going to a destination that is not well known.

There is also the factor that most of the older people out there wouldn't have a clue on how to use the trip planner nor the next bus service.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ People are people. Believing that a city is exceptional can lead to really bad decisions. Yeah just remember that the 2% wasn't daily - it was ever. You have to design a system that doesn't assume everyone will know the alternate routes that will save time. Most people will look at the rail and higher order transit map, plot their route and be done.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ People are people. Believing that a city is exceptional can lead to really bad decisions. Yeah just remember that the 2% wasn't daily - it was ever. You have to design a system that doesn't assume everyone will know the alternate routes that will save time. Most people will look at the rail and higher order transit map, plot their route and be done.

Not sure where you got the idea that I said Vancouver was exceptional.

Again you are using the argument that only 2% of people have ever used the trip planner in Portland. I'm not saying those numbers are not poor. But just because Portland is poor doesn't mean Vancouver is just as poor. I'm also not saying everyone in Vancouver uses the trip planner either. But you can't use a stat from one city and apply it with to another city.

Personally I have actually found that it is far better to not use the trip planner and just look at the online schedules and do all the planning manually. It might take longer in time. But it gives me a better idea of what to do if I happen to miss a connection. Do I wait for the next bus or do I wait for another bus or do I walk to another route.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ What I am saying is most users don't plan their route anymore than looking at the rail plan, and to plan a network not to take into account that fact is doomed to introduce unforeseen inefficiencies because people will take the routes that look fastest to them using available information, not routes that are actually fastest.

If you don't build capacity for them to take the routes they will use because of their choice you are in for a world of hurt.