Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[vangirl3]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't think anybody is arguing that LRT will have a place in Metro Vancouver Transit.

Where is it going to be? I would argue that Broadway will be RRT -- as well as Hastings and Marine. So... let's put LRT out in Surrey... but build ridership with a bline first?

[Metro-One]

Well I was at the open house / discussion tonight. probably to no surprise to those on this forum I was one of the most vocal attendants.

The majority of people there were in support of sky train as the preferred choice, many of the concerns we have with LRT and rapid bus were echoed at the meeting.

There were a couple LRT supporters for the Broadway corridor, but by leistening to their statements I could tell they were not thinking about commuters, but more about tourists.

One guy was saying how he spent a few weeks in Switzerland and loved riding the street level LRTs when he was there. But that is the thing, he was a tourists there, not a day in day out commuter whom are more concerned with travel time and train frequencies, not window shopping.

More good news is after talking to a couple Vancouver councillors it seems the city is pushing for sky train (grade separation) because the city feels that if a surface option is chosen then a regional problem is simply being dumped on their street, which they do not want.

Wish I could say more but i am tired.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well I was at the open house / discussion tonight. probably to no surprise to those on this forum I was one of the most vocal attendants.

One guy was saying how he spent a few weeks in Switzerland and loved riding the street level LRTs when he was there. But that is the thing, he was a tourists there, not a day in day out commuter whom are more concerned with travel time and train frequencies, not window shopping.

Are you suggesting that the Swiss do not use their LRT because they are inconvenient?

I've lived for years in Switzerland and I never commuted with a car. They have one of the densest transit networks in the world, and in my humble opinion are lightyears ahead of us as far as commuter mobility is concerned.

Most large Swiss cities have an S-Bahn/RER LRT network that links seamlessly with the intercity and regional rail network. Not only do the two link through common transit nodes but their timetables are coordinated.

The urban transit network also connects with the other modes at the same nodes. Both Geneva and Zurich airports are on main intercity as well as LRT transit lines.

The Swiss rail network feeds into the European Express Rail network run by DB and SNCF and others. You could travel anywhere in Western Europe by Rail.

The network is dense, has high frequencies, the rolling stock is new and comfortable and the network is fast. In fact one of the main problems they are now dealing with is that the popularity of their network is causing overloading on some lines.

[Metro-One]

umm, i think you are taking what I said far out of context. I was just displaying how his "experience" was one of a tourist, and yes, I then went on to explain to him how that LRT system is supported by interurban / commuter / larger heavy rail networks. So since Broadway is a regional route, street grade LRT is not the best choice. If Broadway and UBC were already serviced extensively by heavy rail / commuter rail then maybe LRT would be a decent choice, but we know they are not

i think you have you back up a little to much right now Lezard and seem to be taking every comment as an attack on LRT in general, just cool down a little, I actually find it funny that you read that much into the little blip.

Anyways, I hope others on this forum attended the meetings.

It was an educated crowd tonight, and what was nice is many want to see it built once and built right, even if that means a larger up front cost instead of spending more in the distant future on another upgrade.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

umm, i think you are taking what I said far out of context. I was just displaying how his "experience" was one of a tourist, and yes, I then went on to explain to him how that LRT system is supported by interurban / commuter / larger heavy rail networks. So since Broadway is a regional route, street grade LRT is not the best choice. If Broadway and UBC were already serviced extensively by heavy rail / commuter rail then maybe LRT would be a decent choice, but we know they are not

i think you have you back up a little to much right now Lezard and seem to be taking every comment as an attack on LRT in general, just cool down a little, I actually find it funny that you read that much into the little blip.

Anyways, I hope others on this forum attended the meetings.

It was an educated crowd tonight, and what was nice is many want to see it built once and built right, even if that means a larger up front cost instead of spending more in the distant future on another upgrade.

Ok, point taken; although the additional information wasn't in the post. And the phrasing did suggest what others here sometimes allude to as "LRT is fine for the tourists but not for serious transit".

Btb, Broadway is both a local transit corridor as well as a regional transit corridor.

So I'll try to take a chill pill and go to bed now. Hopefully tomorrow I'll wake up and read that Translink was named sole heir to some multibillionaire and will be funding the Broadway RRT line with this golden gift.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by lezard

Ok, point taken; although the additional information wasn't in the post. And the phrasing did suggest what others here sometimes allude to as "LRT is fine for the tourists but not for serious transit".

Btb, Broadway is both a local transit corridor as well as a regional transit corridor.

So I'll try to take a chill pill and go to bed now. Hopefully tomorrow I'll wake up and read that Translink was named sole heir to some multibillionaire and will be funding the Broadway RRT line with this golden gift.

That golden gift would be a 50 cent increase in gas taxes, tolls on all the bridges and a 50% increase in parking taxes.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by vangirl3

Where is it going to be? I would argue that Broadway will be RRT -- as well as Hastings and Marine. So... let's put LRT out in Surrey... but build ridership with a bline first?

LRT? Yes Surrey, out to Langley, other routes in Vancouver (maybe 41st, Hastings). There's room for more lines in Richmond, maybe as far as the ferry terminal.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well I was at the open house / discussion tonight. probably to no surprise to those on this forum I was one of the most vocal attendants.

The majority of people there were in support of sky train as the preferred choice, many of the concerns we have with LRT and rapid bus were echoed at the meeting.

There were a couple LRT supporters for the Broadway corridor, but by leistening to their statements I could tell they were not thinking about commuters, but more about tourists.

One guy was saying how he spent a few weeks in Switzerland and loved riding the street level LRTs when he was there. But that is the thing, he was a tourists there, not a day in day out commuter whom are more concerned with travel time and train frequencies, not window shopping.

More good news is after talking to a couple Vancouver councillors it seems the city is pushing for sky train (grade separation) because the city feels that if a surface option is chosen then a regional problem is simply being dumped on their street, which they do not want.

Wish I could say more but i am tired.

thanks for the update! i went to one of the open houses back in ~ Dec 2009, and it was more amorphous (did you guys do the roadway scematic with the cut-out cars, trains and bikes?)

I do sense that there is increasing consensus that RRT is the best fit for the broadway corridor(frances bula had a post on humantransit's streetcar versus LRT). Once evergreen skytrain is started, especially.

[GMasterAres]

I think the debate is pointless LRT vs RRT. Critics as always lose the focus on what the actual debate should be. There is no argument of LRT vs RRT. Skytrain is the most efficient way of moving people period in a metro-area. The ridership numbers are almost double per day of Boston's Greenline, the Greenline having statistically the highest ridership rate of any LRT system in North America. Portland's system isn't even half it's not even 1/4 of what Skytrain does per day.

Not to mention when you compare Skytrain to other RRT systems in the world including the Bullet Train in Japan which connects 20 million people together, Skytrain has more ridership per day than even that system. And it services a population of maybe 1.6 million (not all of the lower mainland has access to Skytrain) vs 20 million for the Bullet Trains.

So that's not the debate. Anyone that says LRT > Skytrain for moving people efficiently thinks the sky is also purple.

The debate is should the Broadway corridor be a regional priority. My opinion is that it is and it isn't. It needs to be done for the simple reason that it is one of the most cluttered of transport corridors in metro-Vancouver in addition to the fact that has been pointed out that it crosses a dozen+ of other major transport corridors. Also UBC has such a high commute population that it is an important regional target.

At the same time though, I think other systems are long overdue including Evergreen and LRT/Skytrain extension in the Surrey/Langly area. I just hope that a Broadway line doesn't mean saying no to the other regional priorities. Basically a 1 without the other.

We need them all.

I do think though that for Broadway itself, a Canada Line like Skytrain route is the only option at this stage. I'd rather they connect it to Millenium line or something though. That would increase it's overall ridership and make that line even more benefitial overall.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The debate is should the Broadway corridor be a regional priority. My opinion is that it is and it isn't. It needs to be done for the simple reason that it is one of the most cluttered of transport corridors in metro-Vancouver in addition to the fact that has been pointed out that it crosses a dozen+ of other major transport corridors. Also UBC has such a high commute population that it is an important regional target.

At the same time though, I think other systems are long overdue including Evergreen and LRT/Skytrain extension in the Surrey/Langly area. I just hope that a Broadway line doesn't mean saying no to the other regional priorities. Basically a 1 without the other.

We need them all.

I do think though that for Broadway itself, a Canada Line like Skytrain route is the only option at this stage. I'd rather they connect it to Millenium line or something though. That would increase it's overall ridership and make that line even more benefitial overall.

I agree with you, Surrey/Langley does need transit, but the question is where. From King Geroge station, the city stretches out in 3 directions, West, East and South. Where do you send Skytrain or build LRT. Langley City is a logical Choice, but so would be a redeveloped Newton or Guildford. And what about the density along Scott Road or the super growth being seen in South Surrey and Cloverdale?

Broadway, is a priority, and it's easily identifiable. It's clear. In this thread the debate is weather it should be surface rail on Broadway or subway under 10th. We are talking the difference of a block in terms of corridor width.

For years there was debate on where Evergreen should go. The destination was determined, but the path of the track could have gone through the NW or SE, and that was debated for years (and sometimes I still don't think we got it 100% right, with not enough stations or passing through some underdeveloped land).

In Surrey, we don't even know where we want to go. Do we build rail to Guildford, or down King George to Newton. Do we push Skytrain down Fraser Highway to Langley or LRT cross town on one of the avenues? What about 200th street, where does that connect to the grid? There are a good dozen potential town centers south of the Fraser, not many of them conveniently located in a straight line. And could any of them at this point support the ridership requirements of even the investment of LRT/Tram?

Surrey does need transit, but I still think there are too many unanswered questions regarding exactly where in Surrey we need it first; right now it seems to be a 5 way tie (Scottsdale, Newton, Guildford, Fleetwood, Langley City) with a bunch more close seconds scattered around. The end game would be all of them, but the first move is always the most critical.

Broadway is such an easy choice and desperately needed to serve current riders, and attract new riders who avoid Broadway transit like the plague. I think there is at least 1 potential rider for every 1 currently along Broadway that would switch over from driving on opening day of the Broadway line. Surrey needs to get their act together, like Vancouver, and demand Translink and the province where they want it. Vancouver's demand is very specific: Rapid Transit is desperately needed on Broadway to UBC. Surrey doesn't have a demand, and their desire isn't that specific, it's just: Transit Please.

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Surrey does need transit, but I still think there are too many unanswered questions regarding exactly where in Surrey we need it first; right now it seems to be a 5 way tie (Scottsdale, Newton, Guildford, Fleetwood, Langley City) with a bunch more close seconds scattered around. The end game would be all of them, but the first move is always the most critical.

Guildford is the shortest of them all from Surrey Central, and density is starting to show along 104th. Political risks should be minimal given the lower construction costs and high ridership on existing bus routes. It doesn't hurt to fuel more RRT and density aspirations from South of the Fraser once it's successful (and it should be).

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I agree with you, Surrey/Langley does need transit, but the question is where. From King Geroge station, the city stretches out in 3 directions, West, East and South. Where do you send Skytrain or build LRT.

Surrey should be forced to choose one destination to receive rapid transit in the short term, and the corresponding corridor to be densified. I'm guessing that Surrey would choose Newton if they were forced to make a choice. That route should then either be the first LRT line, or the sole SkyTrain extension, if the latter is cost-effective.

All other town centres in Surrey and vicinity should then be deferred to future LRT line(s), ideally a single second line that hits as many of them in as linear a fashion as possible, e.g. Scottsdale -Whalley - Guildford or Whalley - Newton - White Rock.

In my humble opinion, an extension to Langley starts to border on "how far do we want Metro to sprawl" territory. Langley should not be an early priority for LRT, just like White Rock is not. If we want Surrey to be the 2nd big regional centre, then we should focus on connecting it to the town centres that are closest to it first, and Langley would definitely not be included on that list.

Remember, Whalley to Langley is roughly the same distance as Waterfront to New West!

[NucksFanInVan]

Originally Posted by lezard

Because we don't have the cash for a Ferrari. It's as simple as that. So we will probably either have to settle for a Volkswagen or continue to drive our trusty old Ford LTD.

More like a minivan than a ferrari. For my growing family, I'd rather stick to the trusty rusty LTD than buy an impractical Volkswagon Bug. The new bug may be more reliable but it won't be too useful for a family of 3 -> 4 ->5. At the same time, the purchase price for the bug would leave me that much farther from reaching my ultimate goal of a minivan.

Nope, for me, I'd save my pennies until I could buy the minivan.

But comparing rapid transit options to cars makes no sense for two reasons:

1. After a few years, you CAN trade in your bug toward the price of a minivan.

If we invest in LRT, it's a LOT of money spent for relatively limited service improvements, with no effective way to leverage that into a better system in the future.

2. you CAN'T buy a car in phases ("OK, I've only got 60% of the money right now, can I please just have the drivetrain and wheels?")

For the RRT option, though, you can take the $(insert zwei's latest number here) that an LRT would cost and, with a little foresight and a long-term vision, start phasing in your RRT system. First to Cambie if necessary, then Arbutus, then UBC. Each piece provides both a significant system enhancement (in its own right) and ALSO serves as a building block for the next improvement.

Investing big $$ to provide minor service improvements in a busy and growing corridor with no long-term potential for service improvement is an indefensible waste of tax dollars. I'd rather take the bus and save my pennies.

[NucksFanInVan]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Between Commercial and Arbutus, an LRT would have to contend with traffic crossing the ROW at Commercial, Clark, Glen, Fraser, Kingsway, Main, Quebec, Manitoba, Yukon, Cambie, Ash, Heather, Willow, Laurel, Oak, Hemlock, Granville, Fir, Burrard, Arbutus. These intersections can not be closed into right in/out only. Traffic desperately needs to cross (at least left turns) at all those. I just don't see how an LRT with high speeds and high frequencies can work. There is no way signal prioritization can 100% solve this problem. There will still be times when a tram will have to stop at a signal because it's travelling to slow or stay at a station too long. Time needs to be given for cars and pedestrians to clear the tracks under signal prioritization, and if the trains have a low headway in both directions, I don't see how that will be always possible.

As usual BC Phil I think you're right on the money. I geeked out and set up a very simple excel spreadsheet to play with, assuming
50 km/h travel speed (13.9 m/s)
instantaneous acceleration & braking
30s dwell times at stns btw Cambie & yukon, laurel & oak, granville & fir
intersections from Yukon to Burrard every 150 m
3 minute headways

If you time the trains so that EB and WB trains pass through the Cambie intersection at the same time then the apogee (essentially a train arriving every 90 s) falls at Granville & Broadway. Virtually every timing combination in between the two, so you'd have all kinds of crazy light intervals at the intervening intersections, including an alternate 70s / 110s cycle at Oak.

With the lights shackled to such a schedule, signal prioritization would last exactly as long as it takes the LRT to splinch the third frustrated driver turning left after the light went red. When you consider the schedule will need to be adjusted on the fly (extended station dwells, slow pedestrians, etc.) it's easy to see that there is no way you could support bi-directional priority on short blocks at short headways without inducing traffic chaos.

Works great in theory but falls apart once you introduce the human element.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by jhausner

I think the debate is pointless LRT vs RRT. Critics as always lose the focus on what the actual debate should be. There is no argument of LRT vs RRT. Skytrain is the most efficient way of moving people period in a metro-area. The ridership numbers are almost double per day of Boston's Greenline, the Greenline having statistically the highest ridership rate of any LRT system in North America. Portland's system isn't even half it's not even 1/4 of what Skytrain does per day.

Not to mention when you compare Skytrain to other RRT systems in the world including the Bullet Train in Japan which connects 20 million people together, Skytrain has more ridership per day than even that system. And it services a population of maybe 1.6 million (not all of the lower mainland has access to Skytrain) vs 20 million for the Bullet Trains.

So that's not the debate. Anyone that says LRT > Skytrain for moving people efficiently thinks the sky is also purple.

The debate is should the Broadway corridor be a regional priority. My opinion is that it is and it isn't. It needs to be done for the simple reason that it is one of the most cluttered of transport corridors in metro-Vancouver in addition to the fact that has been pointed out that it crosses a dozen+ of other major transport corridors. Also UBC has such a high commute population that it is an important regional target.

At the same time though, I think other systems are long overdue including Evergreen and LRT/Skytrain extension in the Surrey/Langly area. I just hope that a Broadway line doesn't mean saying no to the other regional priorities. Basically a 1 without the other.

We need them all.

I do think though that for Broadway itself, a Canada Line like Skytrain route is the only option at this stage. I'd rather they connect it to Millenium line or something though. That would increase it's overall ridership and make that line even more benefitial overall.

My cue for a rant.

Skytrain carries more than Japan's high speed rail network? Apples and oranges? Just Tokyo - Osaka carries 150'000'000 a year.

Paris RER lines carry upwards of 440 million and Paris Metropolitain carries 1,3 billion. So the whole RATP rail network carries 1,7 billion passengers a year for a metro population of 11 or so million. 154 passengers per resident of the urban area. Skytrain carries some 90 million for a population of 2 million. 45 passengers per resident of the urban area.

And we haven't counted the SNCF regional and interurban networks in that. West Coast Express would be just a drop in the bucket in comparaison.

Cities like Paris and Tokyo have four or so different levels of rail transit available to the commuter. Vancouver has just the one. (correction: two with West Coast Express. Apologies)

I think you're getting your rails tangled.

Shinkansen, or TGV, ICE, Talys, Eurostar, etc... are Heavy rail RRT. These combinations carry 1000 or more passengers at speeds exceeding 250 km/h.

Skytrain is Light Rail Transit, rapid light rail transit, but light rail transit all the same. The combinations carry no more than 500 passengers at speeds not above 90 km/h.

The debate for the Broadway corridor is not whether Skytrain or LRT, for the one is a form of the other, but whether or not the line is grade separated or on street level.

One gives you much greater speed and capacity over the length of the corridor whereas the other will be substantially cheaper to build and operate.

Once the choice of grade separation is made than you can choose whether it is driver operated or automated, linear induction motors or conventional, compatible with Millennium and Expo line or Canada Line, underground or above ground, standard gauge or narrow gauge, etc…

Whether Skytrain is the most efficient mode of moving people depends on how it compares with other comparable systems, such as Canada Line or RER.

Of course grade separated LRT (Skytrain, Canada Line, RER, Underground, Metro, etc…) carries more people farther faster than street level LRT (streetcar for example)

And finally, skies are sometimes purple. I've seen sunsets that are just out of this world.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by lezard

Are you suggesting that the Swiss do not use their LRT because they are inconvenient?

LRT is the Best "Don't you know that you could build it for $10 million and it would go 110km/hr! Imagine that speed on Broadway, way faster than any skytrain or subway. Also it would be great to see how many tourists would be splattered over the front winshield!"

[lezard]

Originally Posted by NucksFanInVan

More like a minivan than a ferrari. For my growing family, I'd rather stick to the trusty rusty LTD than buy an impractical Volkswagon Bug. The new bug may be more reliable but it won't be too useful for a family of 3 -> 4 ->5. At the same time, the purchase price for the bug would leave me that much farther from reaching my ultimate goal of a minivan.

Nope, for me, I'd save my pennies until I could buy the minivan.

But comparing rapid transit options to cars makes no sense for two reasons:

1. After a few years, you CAN trade in your bug toward the price of a minivan.

If we invest in LRT, it's a LOT of money spent for relatively limited service improvements, with no effective way to leverage that into a better system in the future.

2. you CAN'T buy a car in phases ("OK, I've only got 60% of the money right now, can I please just have the drivetrain and wheels?")

For the RRT option, though, you can take the $(insert zwei's latest number here) that an LRT would cost and, with a little foresight and a long-term vision, start phasing in your RRT system. First to Cambie if necessary, then Arbutus, then UBC. Each piece provides both a significant system enhancement (in its own right) and ALSO serves as a building block for the next improvement.

Investing big $$ to provide minor service improvements in a busy and growing corridor with no long-term potential for service improvement is an indefensible waste of tax dollars. I'd rather take the bus and save my pennies.

I had more of a funky volkswagen van in mind. But what you write makes sense. Linking Canada Line and Millenium at Cambie might be a good idea even without the UBC line.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by tybuilding

LRT is the Best "Don't you know that you could build it for $10 million and it would go 110km/hr! Imagine that speed on Broadway, way faster than any skytrain or subway. Also it would be great to see how many tourists would be splattered over the front winshield!"

Yah! LRT is the bane of the Swiss Tourism industry. Do know how many tour groups just get vaporized by ravenous rabid LRT combinations? There are no statistics in fact; even the college kids that go out to count the massacre are reduced to — pulp by the steel monsters. No wonder no one travels to Switzerland anymore.

Now tell me where exactly I wrote that rubbish you quoted!

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by lezard

Yah! LRT is the bane of the Swiss Tourism industry. Do know how many tour groups just get vaporized by ravenous rabid LRT combinations? There are no statistics in fact; even the college kids that go out to count the massacre are reduced to — pulp by the steel monsters. No wonder no one travels to Switzerland anymore.

Now tell me where exactly I wrote that rubbish you quoted!

Hah hah I am just referring to the garbage Zweisystem wrote yesterday in the comments in the Georgia Straight article. I thought it was too funny so I thought to write some sarcasm in here. He actually quoted in there that the "Did you know that LRT would go 110km/hr" on Broadway. The link to that comment section is found a couple of pages back here. I thought to combine it with the tourist reference as any train or vehicle travelling at 110km/hr on any street level grade would crash into anything in its path as any LRT even if it had its own right of way can't be truely seperated unless it is grade seperated being elevated or underground. Now whether that comment in the article was the real Zwei or not, well who knows.

Originally Posted by WaxItYourself

Here's a little something for you all to laugh at, comment on, and make fun of the author: http://www.straight.com/article-323606/vancouver/new-broadway-skytrain-would-be-true-farce

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I see Zwei needs his meds adjusted again ...

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/20...follies-part-4-the-versatile-light-rail/

I have to remember to be careful what I'm sipping while reading his posts - is anything worse than back-snorting hot cocoa out my nose & down my lungs while stifling a laugh & trying to breath again? The missus was had already dialed the first two digits of 9-1-1 before I was able to say I was OK.


(warning: this picture may cause ROTFLAMAO and spillage)


Zwei's solution for keeping bikes out of trains.

He also mentions dinner trains, I suppose we can have a hot dog vendor on the train, I don't think there will be much time for dinner, well maybe if there was an accident in the way...