Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[SpongeG]

Metro Vancouver pushes rapid transit for Surrey, not UBC
SEPTEMBER 5, 2010

After hundreds of thousands of dollars in studies, hours of meetings, it looks like we won’t have to think about Broadway Rapid Transit for the foreseeable future. At one point I equated it to planning a wedding without a groom. Bingo! Read more in this article by the Vancouver Sun…

Written by KELLY SINOSKI, Vancouver Sun, September 4, 2010

...

http://southgranvilleblog.wordpress.com/...pushes-rapid-transit-for-surrey-not-ubc/

[WBC]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Metro Vancouver pushes rapid transit for Surrey, not UBC
SEPTEMBER 5, 2010

After hundreds of thousands of dollars in studies, hours of meetings, it looks like we won’t have to think about Broadway Rapid Transit for the foreseeable future. At one point I equated it to planning a wedding without a groom. Bingo! Read more in this article by the Vancouver Sun…

Written by KELLY SINOSKI, Vancouver Sun, September 4, 2010

...

http://southgranvilleblog.wordpress.com/...pushes-rapid-transit-for-surrey-not-ubc/

Doesn't province build these as they see fit regardless of the studies. The studies are mostly the waste of money that keeps the Translink/municipality's contractors and experts busy. Then the new provincial government shows up and does whatever they feel like (not that I object to this as municipalities can never agree to do anything). I mean what do you guys think will happen with any plans past Evergreen once Libs get their asses handed to them in the next election?

[SpongeG]

i just found that on facebook - word is going around on there that the broadway extension is dead and surrey is getting priority

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

I'm glad someone else pointed out the that the 10,000 per month statistic was b.s. Something else that the councilor implied annoys me:



The Broadway extension is not for the exclusive use of UBC students! It is the final (at least for the next couple of decades) piece of a regional high-speed transit system north of the Fraser. Once it is built--and I believe that it will be built before the Surrey extensions--it will be a major success from day one.

I thought the same thing. It irks me to no end when people say the Broadway extension is only about the UBC students.

There is far more to the Broadway extension than just getting some students to UBC. Although that is a big reason for building it as well.

[usog]

Mmm, I'd view it like this: After the Canada line going to Richmond, the Evergreen line going to Coquitlam, the continued attention given to Vancouver ontop of the fact that they stole the buses intended for Surrey, as a transit person in Surrey I wouldn't be very impressed with a millennium line extension or translink in general considering how substandard service in Surrey is. That's ignoring the fact that as it is there wouldn't be a skytrain extension in Broadway *or* Surrey anytime soon given the clusterfk that is Translink itself.

I seriously wonder though how much Surrey gets out of translink versus how much they pay into it. I'm reminded of a quote from Watts here
"TransLink is like the mafia. You can get in, but you can't get out. And you have to keep paying."

[nname]

There are figures about cost recovery in each sub-region in the area transit plan.. up until the one for Surrey, where they removed that section completely.

If I remember correctly, both Vancouver and Burnaby are running very close to break-even. Richmond, North Shore, Ridge Meadows, on the other hand, are dragging the cost recovery down. Tri-Cities used to belong the latter group, but after the mass implementation of community shuttles, now lying somewhere in the middle.

But then, it would be hard to compare as the way of measurment it is a bit different in each document (did they did that on purpose to prevent comparison?).. and the data are quite old too... 2000-2004.

In case anyone is wondering, data ordered by date, bus only unless otherwise noted:

Richmond (2000)
Cost: 28.5 millions
Revenue: 13.3 millions
Trips: 9.5 millions
Ride per Hour: 33.1
Cost per Ride: $3.00
Cost Recovery: 46%

North Shore (2000)
Cost: 38.5 millions
Revenue*: 16.5 millions
Trips*: 10 millions
Ride per Hour: 27.2
Cost per Ride**: $3.85
Cost Recovery**: 43%

* = include SeaBus
** = include SeaBus in revenue but not in cost

Burnaby (2004)
Cost: 53.3 millions
Revenue*: 69.3 millions
Trips*: 38.7 millions
Ride per Hour: 60.2
Cost per Ride**: $1.37
Cost Recovery**: 130%

* = include SkyTrain
** = include SkyTrain in revenue but not in cost

Tri-Cities (2004)
Cost: 21.9 millions
Revenue*: 18.2 millions
Trips*: 10.2 millions
Ride per Hour: 40.5
Cost per Ride**: $2.15

* = include WCE
** = include WCE in revenue but not in cost

Ridge Meadows (2004)
Cost: 4.3 millions
Revenue*: 1.8 millions
Trips*: 1.1 millions
Ride per Hour: 20.0
Cost per Ride**: $3.91
Cost Recovery**: 43%

* = include WCE
** = include WCE in revenue but not in cost

Vancouver/UBC (2004)
Cost: 133.2 millions
Boardings A: 101.6 millions
Boardings B*: 135.8 millions
Ride per Hour: 59.5

* = include SkyTrain

South of Fraser
No Data!

The way they present it rendered the data pretty much useless, eh? Maybe someone can use the cost for Skytrain/WCE, the trip per boarding, and the revenue per boarding data (for 2004) to get an estimate for the actual cost recovery...

[CLC]

Originally Posted by nname

To visualize the need for a rapid transit system on Broadway, check out the post on the buzzer blog dated Sept 1

(I won't link it here since the video is sort of private..)

Obviously 99-b is very far from a real BRT. IMO Broadway b-line needs an immediate upgrade of a transit-only lane for at least 16 hours a day, it will save 12% of trip time (proved during Olympics) and thus allows utilizing the same number of buses to service more customers.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by nname

The 98 B-Line buses now distributed all over the place. Most are running as 480 and 620 (the original plan was to use a 40ft bus I think), some are put into the 99 (where older 60ft buses get put into storage), some are going to Poco and turn some of the 97/143/160/701 into 60ft (and the original 40ft buses get put into storage), and now some are added to the 49 (which result in more 40ft gets put into storage). From a document I have, seems like there are 62 buses that are not supposed to be retired yet but are placed into storage: 27 40ft low floor (D40LF), 2 hybrids (ex-fuel cell), 5 60ft low floor (D60LF), 19 highway buses, 1 Nova, and 8 community shuttles.

Do you have the info on the number of 60ft buses to be used to service #49 route?

[Millennium2002]

Probably a few... it's supposed to happen on some peak hour trips according to the service changes website.

It'd be cool if we didn't have to prioritize building one line over the next... that only divides the whole region compared to uniting it. Unfortunately... the limited funding that TransLink is being given is a big problem as well.

(thinks for a bit)

I think there's a problem that we have to face that's the cause of all these issues: density.

In practically much of the metro area, there are not many dense local centres that would be easily served by transit connections. Surrey shows acute signs of this everywhere: massive sprawl means buses must travel farther to reach customers, each which pays the same token amount while the cost of fuel skyrockets. Vancouver is somewhat better but the problem still exists outside of Downtown and SkyTrain areas.

What does this mean? Basically, same revenue + increasing expenses = an inability to grow the transport network to follow population trends.

The solution? Well... theoretically it's simple. Build more dense town centres close to theoretical transport connections like the ones shown on my fantasy map. Once demand and revenue increases to a justified amount, rapid transit can branch out from where it is right now.

Of course, implementing this will require lots of willpower and determination to look beyond short-term money chasing and community nimbyism... something that is lacking in almost every municipal council in this region.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by usog

Mmm, I'd view it like this: After the Canada line going to Richmond, the Evergreen line going to Coquitlam, the continued attention given to Vancouver ontop of the fact that they stole the buses intended for Surrey, as a transit person in Surrey I wouldn't be very impressed with a millennium line extension or translink in general considering how substandard service in Surrey is. That's ignoring the fact that as it is there wouldn't be a skytrain extension in Broadway *or* Surrey anytime soon given the clusterfk that is Translink itself.

I seriously wonder though how much Surrey gets out of translink versus how much they pay into it. I'm reminded of a quote from Watts here
"TransLink is like the mafia. You can get in, but you can't get out. And you have to keep paying."

No one has ever said that Surrey does not deserve better transit.

I do not like though when it is said that "Vancouver gets everything." While that might be partly true. What are we supposed to do here. Tell everyone who doesn't live in Vancouver to not come as we won't be expanding the service here. But if you would like you can go see Surrey.

You do realize that a good majority of the people going to work are headed for Downtown or along Broadway. So any improvement that happens in Surrey that attracts more ridership. Will in some small way have a negative impact on transit around downtown and along Broadway. Sure not everyone in Surrey is headed to Vancouver. But a good portion of them are.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Probably a few... it's supposed to happen on some peak hour trips according to the service changes website.

It'd be cool if we didn't have to prioritize building one line over the next... that only divides the whole region compared to uniting it. Unfortunately... the limited funding that TransLink is being given is a big problem as well.

(thinks for a bit)

I think there's a problem that we have to face that's the cause of all these issues: density.

In practically much of the metro area, there are not many dense local centres that would be easily served by transit connections. Surrey shows acute signs of this everywhere: massive sprawl means buses must travel farther to reach customers, each which pays the same token amount while the cost of fuel skyrockets. Vancouver is somewhat better but the problem still exists outside of Downtown and SkyTrain areas.

What does this mean? Basically, same revenue + increasing expenses = an inability to grow the transport network to follow population trends.

The solution? Well... theoretically it's simple. Build more dense town centres close to theoretical transport connections like the ones shown on my fantasy map. Once demand and revenue increases to a justified amount, rapid transit can branch out from where it is right now.

Of course, implementing this will require lots of willpower and determination to look beyond short-term money chasing and community nimbyism... something that is lacking in almost every municipal council in this region.

Vancouver may not look dense outside of downtown and around the Skytrain areas. But it actually is a lot more dense than you think.

[satishreddy]

Why do people say Vancouver has low density outside of downtown?

Here is demographic information from Wikipedia (using 2006 census figures).

Vancouver: Population: 578,000, Area: 44.3 sq miles, Density: 13,047 per sq mile
Surrey: Population: 395,000, Area: 122.5 sq miles, Density: 3224 per sq mile
Burnaby: Population: 216,336, Area: 38.1 sq miles, Density: 5678 per sq mile
Richmond: Population: 174,461, Area: 50.1 sq miles, Density: 3482 per sq mile
Coquitlam: Population: 121,452, Area: 58.9 sq miles, Density: 2062 per sq mile
Port Moody: Population: 27,512 Area: 10.1 sq miles, Density: 2723 per sq mile
Port Coquitlam: Population: 55,375, Area: 11.1 sq miles, Density: 4988 per sq mile

Suppose one EXCLUDES the population of downtown Vancouver, which is about 80,000. The average density in Vancouver outside downtown is still around 10,790 per square mile, almost twice the average of the other municipalities listed above.

There are several reasons why more transit resources are deployed in Vancouver than in Surrey:

(1) Higher density: population itself doesn't drive ridership, it is density.

(2) Destinations: people from all over the region want to go downtown, central Broadway, UBC, the 3 most popular transit destinations in metro Vancouver.

I have seen articles in papers and discussions in this bulletin board stating that the Broadway rapid transit should not be build because there isn't the density to support it. If that is true, under what LOGICAL argument should the Evergreen line and Surrey skytrain extension take place?

[Whalleyboy]

Surreys density level is an unfair thing to use in an argument. The density levels dont take in account the fact that 1/3 of surrey is farm land. Just look at Richmond it was has density that matches up with surrey and they got a fair bit of farmland themselves but the canada line is kicking ass.

[cc85]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

I have seen articles in papers and discussions in this bulletin board stating that the Broadway rapid transit should not be build because there isn't the density to support it. If that is true, under what LOGICAL argument should the Evergreen line and Surrey skytrain extension take place?

Growth is cheaper in Surrey; therefore, to shape development towards being transit-oriented, it is essential that rapid transit (ALRT in our society) be implemented to ensure ridership.

[jlousa]

Transit should shape planning absolutely, but if there is not enough money to serve existing needs and shape future demands then it gets a little tricker. I feel that since there isn't the money currently for both, then economically we are better off serving that existing demand.
Translink building the UBC line first will cost it capital money and financing of that capital, but it's revenue would more then pay for the operating costs and even have a touch left over to help pay for the financing. If we do the Surrey line first then Translink will have to pay the capital/financing costs plus supplement the operating costs (at least for the first few years possibly the first decade like they did for the M-Line).
Ideally we'd see Translink have enough money to do both in a similar timeframe, but that does not seem likely. I'm also not so sure that Surrey is getting short-sighted by Translink, they do have the new GEB, and an upcoming Pattullo bridge, and although Gateway isn't Translink the money is coming from the same source.

[Smooth]

I agree with jlousa's assessment. Transit in Surrey, although worthwhile, would require more subsidies which would tie Translink's hands in the future. I think if the Broadway line was built first then the Surrey line would likely be about 5 years behind. If Surrey was first, then Broadway would have to wait about 10 years.

Personally, I think LRT would be more suitable for Surrey's layout. If you moved all the Broadway buses to Surrey and created a rapid bus network, that layout could easily be converted to LRT as funds became available.

Ideally, I'd like to see the skytrain line in Surrey to continue along the Fraser Highway alignment to Fleetwood and then eventually to Langley. I'd then have LRT connect Guildford, Surrey Central, Kwantlen & Whiterock. (Forgive me if I'm missed other important hubs & destinations in Surrey, it's a part of Metro Vancouver that I haven't spent much time in.)

[Millennium2002]

Not to push the focus to Surrey, but the need for rapid transit expansion south of the Fraser River is harder to understand for me. Maybe in the future, there'll be enough people to support an extended Expo line, but right now, it'd be considerably cheaper and also cost-effective to run bus rapid transit or even light rail transit through all of the flat vast expanse of the Fraser River delta.

[Whalleyboy]

see there is one thing i notice everyone keeps thinking of the vast empty farm land flats of Surrey. The routes dont even need to go there at first to help out. If you take out that area and just work with Newton, Fleetwood, Whalley and Guildford may as well even add north delta you got a huge area that is in need of something. These areas do not have huge vast open areas

The population of just Newton and Whalley are more then Richmond and probably just as much as Burnaby.

[SpongeG]

surrey is pushing 400,000 pop now isn't it? and should be more than vancouver in a decade?

get the transit in now

as for broadway i would rather see the evergeen money used to extend the m line to at least city hall or arbutus and than figure out the UBC part later

[nname]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

surrey is pushing 400,000 pop now isn't it? and should be more than vancouver in a decade?

There is no way Surrey itself can get more pop than Vancouver within the decade.. Surrey+Langley+WR.. maybe, but Surrey.. not possible.

For the last 10 years, Surrey gained an average of 8.8k per year, while Vancouver gets 6.4k, and Surrey currently has 182k less people than Vancouver. Assuming the same growth rate, it will take about 76 years for Surrey to pass Vancouver. Even if the growth in Vancouver stops completely, getting 182k in 10 years would still require almost double the highest growth rate for each of the next 10 years.