Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by 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.

The average density in south east Vancouver is actually higher than 10,790 per sq mile, and is really closer to the 13,000-14,000 per sq mile mark. And this is for mostly single family homes.

The census tract that I live in has a density of 13,953 per sq mile and that includes a park so it skews the number as well. The census tract just south of me with no park as density of 19,764 per sq mile.

Now I'm not saying that these areas can not get more dense but when people say Vancouver is not dense outside of downtown. They really don't know what they are talking about.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by 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.

I do agree with you on the farm land part. Which is why I feel it really shouldn't be counted in the area when calculating average density. Having said that if farm land is removed than parks or mountains should be removed as well.

A better indicator of density would be to only use the developed land. Although it is harder to determine that than to just say Surrey is so many sq miles.

As for the Canada Line, just remember that it is the first line to Richmond. While Surrey has had a line to it for almost 20 years.

[nickinacan]

Originally Posted by 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

Surrey's current population varies depending on the source, anywhere between 450,000 - 500,000. The province states that as of 2009 it is 446,561. I believe it's about 10,000 to 12,000 people moving to Surrey each year.

In my honest opinion, from what I read, it sounds like what Metro Vancouver is actually saying is that Translink needs to invest in transit for Surrey before the Broadway line is built.

Surrey's population is incredibly car dependent. What I find quite funny is that Vancouver actually had about 45,000 more cars registered in the city in 2009 than Surrey did (Source). For a city that has excellent transit service (When compared to the surrounding area) that is still quite a few cars, even given the 180,000 population difference between the two when taking into account the the level of transit service offered in the two cities.

I grew up in and still spend quite a bit of time in Surrey as I have friends and family that live there. I currently live in Vancouver. I know what the so-called transit system is like in Surrey and the South of the Fraser. You have the whole chicken and the egg situation. But when you look at it, the biggest flaws of the transit are the number of transfers and infrequency of the service it take to get from one point to another. So much time is wasted. I say grow the ridership using BRT or LRT with dedicated lanes between the all the town centres (Including Langley and North Delta), then when the ridership grows, take a look at investing in higher capacity modes of transit. The routes have already been identified by Translink. Building Skytrain now would be a colossal waste of money. It should be done the same way the 98B line was developed. Bus-> B-Line-> Skytrain. The ridership was grown.

[punface]

Geoff Meggs (Vancouver City Councillor) has a post on his blog titled "Despite media reports, Metro growth plan leaves room for Broadway rapid transit and Surrey expansion." The main point of the post is that the Metro Board's letter is only demoting the Arbutus->UBC section as a priority, and not the Central Broadway section.

His description:

But Carline’s comments leave out a crucial distinction he made in his letter transmitting the Regional Growth Strategy to the Metro Board. In that letter, he clearly concedes Surrey and Broadway (to Arbutus) merit equal consideration after completion of Evergreen. In fact, they are both “priority 2.”

Another interesting bit of information:

Translink’s initital assessment of the UBC-Broadway options will be available within weeks.

Here's the link: http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2010/09/06/desp...dway-rapid-transit-and-surrey-expansion/

[CLC]

I say grow the ridership using BRT or LRT with dedicated lanes between the all the town centres (Including Langley and North Delta), then when the ridership grows, take a look at investing in higher capacity modes of transit. The routes have already been identified by Translink. Building Skytrain now would be a colossal waste of money.

I agree, just blanket the city of Surrey with several lines of BRT immediately, and gradually upgrade the key ones to LRT based on popularity. BRT and LRT can be built to very high capacity, I don't think Skytrain or "expensive metro" is ever needed for SOF intra-city routes.

[usog]

Originally Posted by CLC

I agree, just blanket the city of Surrey with several lines of BRT immediately, and gradually upgrade the key ones to LRT based on popularity.

Yep, something like a limited-stop bus service of Guilford-Surrey Central-Newton-White Rock. Oh wait, that was the 399, which got canceled so Vancouver could have the buses.

[nname]

And what did Vancouver lost while getting the bus? Major cuts in #3, #4, #8, and #15. The amount of cut is equivalent to cancelling 2 of the infrequent local routes in Surrey (ie. 312-316, 323-335, etc...)

[CLC]

Originally Posted by usog

Yep, something like a limited-stop bus service of Guilford-Surrey Central-Newton-White Rock. Oh wait, that was the 399, which got canceled so Vancouver could have the buses.

do you refer to the fact that former 98-b artics buses are largely reassigned to Vancouver routes + #480?

IMO 399 could have got started using combination of 40ft+ a few 60ft buses. Translink may be lacking money to do transit priority & bus loop modifications?

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by 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

from the cities webpage http://www.surrey.ca/Doing+Business/Popu...Population+Estimates+and+Projections.htm
around 472,000
Whalley 96,720(27,970 in city centre)
Newton 123,270
Guildford 58,670
Fleetwood 58,260
cloverdale 59,480
S.Surrey 75,600
You can also see surreys planned growth up to 2041

[SpongeG]

didn't know it was that big already

[agrant]

And yet, Surrey would still probably have to add 1 million more people to be as densely populated as Vancouver.

[SpongeG]

it has triple the land available doesn't it? its got so much more area to it

[agrant]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

it has triple the land available doesn't it? its got so much more area to it

I guess that's kinda my point.

[SpongeG]

i know but it has the room to grow and overtake vancouver and getting transit in now is a good thing

[Millennium2002]

Area doesn't mean density or more passengers per certain unit of area... in fact, the reverse is true... more area means more population spread out... and it's expensive to run buses over huge distances. I actually think that before an LRT system is built that the current zone fare payment system be replaced by a distance charge to recoup more of the cost... it might sound bias towards the SOF but honestly even with their 10 minute frequencies they're getting a good subsidy from the huge area that zone three covers... and this at the expense of other potential improvements to the region.

EDIT: I wonder if we should shift this discussion about transit priorities somewhere else... not really the right place to discuss Broadway vs Surrey. =S

[Zassk]

Yeah, Surrey needs rapid transit badly, but with the densities and the available rights-of-way, wouldn't it make sense to build several at-grade lines instead of one expensive Skytrain extension? (I know Skytrain in Surrey would cost much less per km than Broadway, but it'll still be a lot more expensive than LRT.)

Here's my prediction:

It's no secret that the City of Victoria has been working on a two-line LRT plan, with fairly detailed planning already done on the first line. I predict that, just before the next election, the gov't announces plans to build two LRT lines in Victoria and two LRT lines in Surrey - one each by 2020 and the second each by 2030. The carrot of a future SkyTrain extension is vaguely mentioned, raising the vision of three full transit lines in Surrey sometime in the future, without actually promising them all.

Simultaneously, they announce a plan to extend Millennium line to Broadway immediately after Evergreen opens. This will make the gov't look good, but the real reason will be to get them off the hook for the expensive upgrade of Expo Line capacity that was previously announced, at least for the near term (it was something like $1.5 billion just for platform extensions alone). The Broadway extension will include a plan for two additional phases, to Arbutus by 2020 and UBC some time after that.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i know but it has the room to grow and overtake vancouver and getting transit in now is a good thing

Surrey is the largest city in BC for land area. Abbotsford is #2. But a lot of that is valuable farmland and building over would eliminate a large portion of our local food supply.

In 2006 Census Vancouver had 578,000, so even if Vancouver experienced 0 growth between 2006 and 2021 - with Surrey predictions it would be another 11 years before they overtake Vancouver. The 2006 Census also says that Vancouver's growth rate was 1/2 of Surrey's(6% vs 13%) between 2001 and 2006, which work out to about 1% and 2% annual growth, respectively. ~2% growth is also what City of Surrey has on its population page(listed a few pages ago) for the recent years. So taking those numbers(2006 for Vancouver - can't find 2010 data), 2010 for Surrey) and assuming their respective growth rates stay roughly the same it will be 2035 before Surrey has more population than Vancouver.


Vancouver 2006 Population: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20100119/documents/ttra4.pdf - Appendix B page 5

City Growth Rates using 2006 Census data: http://www.burnaby.ca/__shared/assets/Social_and_Demographic_trends_in_Burnaby5921.pdf?method=1 - Page 3

[SpongeG]

they can plan for future growth better if the transit system is in place since people will see it and rethink that house further out perhaps

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

from the cities webpage http://www.surrey.ca/Doing+Business/Popu...Population+Estimates+and+Projections.htm
around 472,000
Whalley 96,720(27,970 in city centre)
Newton 123,270
Guildford 58,670
Fleetwood 58,260
cloverdale 59,480
S.Surrey 75,600
You can also see surreys planned growth up to 2041

You are using numbers that are only estimates.

Based on the last census the population of Surrey was 394976. Every population number released after that time is really only an estimate. When the next census comes out next year we will get an accurate update on the population in Surrey.

Of course that is not to say those numbers are incorrect, just that they have not been approved.

[Whalleyboy]

from the page
Please note: Population figures are based on Surrey Building Permit and BC Assessment information. These figures also include an undercount estimate that would result in higher population estimates.


Figures for the years 1981 to 2009 are based on Surrey Building Permit and BC Assessment information. Figures for the years 2011 to 2041 are projections prepared by the Surrey Planning and Development Department.