Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by nname

Can be visualized from this map, maybe



2006 Census.

This map shows it all. Obviously the UBC route needs to be built as soon as possible. However, I think that LRT would be absolutely idiotic of Surrey. LRT is ok for medium density cities or secondary routes. The population density of the parts of Surrey we are talking about is the same or higher than that which the Millennium Line passes through. One day Surrey's population density in some areas will rival Vancouver (and it doesn't matter that some of it will be empty, since some it already is dense, and more of it will be dense one day). Imagine if we built the even the Millennium line as LRT. It would be jam packed and terrible. LRT might seem like a good idea right now, but could never handle the amount of people it would need for the backbone routes in Surrey. An example is the Evergreen line. LRT was determined to be too slow and infrequent for the tri-cites, even though that's shown to be less dense than those key parts of Surrey where the route would go through.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

One MAJOR advantage that Surrey has over Vancouver is that the blocks are built around 1mi (~1600m) arterial roads. What this means is that it's a good fit for LRT with signal priority. Fewer cross-streets.

It's been said before, but an LRT from Newton to Surrey Central and then West to Guildford makes a whole lot more sense than a SkyTrain extension.

As for splitting up Zone 3 into another 3 zones, that's ridiculous. Remember, it's not just fuel that's being paid for on these buses. It's the driver's hours, the bus maintenance etc.

Buses in Vancouver get far more wear and tear, more stopping and starting and travel slower, burning more fuel. In addition the service levels in Vancouver are better... so one expects to pay for more frequent service. Sure, more service means more ridership, meaning costs are recouped better, but still.

Service south of the Fraser is abysmal in comparison... the way the zones are arranged work well. Besides, not many make such long trips out there.

Additionally, in Vancouver/Burnaby, the SkyTrain hits more than one major location and it can be actually used for short return trips. Plenty of people use it for this to nip down to metrotown or some short appointment and then back. Or, they use it to make side trips on the way home. You can't do that on the bus in Surrey. Well, you "can" but it's difficult to do in practice because of wait times and travel times.

The one downside to the 1600M arterial roads. Is that parallel bus routes are separated by too wide a margin. It would mean that someone living in the centre of the arterial block would be about 800M from the nearest bus stop vs about 400 M as it is in Vancouver. I'm not sure where I read it but generally 1000M is a good distance to maintain between bus routes. It allows a transit agency to provide a maximum distance to a bus stop of about 500M. Now in the case of an BRT or LRT or Skytrain. People are willing to walk a longer distance.

It is good for an LRT as you said as there would be less streets to cross.

As for my idea of splitting up the zone. Not sure how you got the idea that a split zone only helps lower the fuel cost. Buses would still go through there regular routes. But a rider would have to pay more depending on whether they cross a zone boundary or not. I would only implement this in the future if distance based fares never come about.

Although distance based fares would be far better.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

Although 3 times the size of Vancouver 1/3 of that is farm land. I would like to know what would be the size and population comparison if we look at just the northern parts of Surrey up to the farmland areas and compare that the the rest of the cities in metro Vancouver. South Surrey although growing is a huge open area of Surrey for the most point and i dont think transit is warrent out that way yet.
Surrey will need a mutli phased transit line plan for seeing growth to areas but i think king george would be what we need now it would allow surrey to go more into a bit of a grid system style bus instead of feeding all in to central it could feed to a line along king george.
personally i think SoF should look at using only one main route leaving out fraser hwy turning more like a Y route to split towards langley and white rock areas
like this
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl...22.784233&spn=0.093727,0.308647&t=h&z=12

Even if we assumed that 2/3 of Surrey is never going to be developed. Although I'm sure that number is too high. It would give Surrey a land area of about 105.62 and a Density of 3,739. Compared to Vancouver at 114.71 and a Density of 5,039.

[nname]

Originally Posted by madmigs

Some more info in regards to your last post about costs.


You need to check your numbers again as new Trolley's cost at least a million a piece - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/02/27/trolley-buses.html 2nd last paragrah - Coast Mountain's last order for 188 40ft. low floor trolleys and 40 60ft. articulated low floor trolleys cost $273 million.


Assuming we have only 140 skytrain cars right now and that each train is 4 cars, we would only have 35 trains, and I highly doubt we have that few trains. In just 2009 we had 48 new cars arrive starting in January - http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2009/01/the-first-of-the-new-skytrain-cars-has-arrived/ And according to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_%28Vancouver%29 - we have 298 cars right now(my guess is including the 40 Canada Line Rotem cars).

I remembered the trolley were pretty close to 1 millions each, the 60ft one were around 1.3 millions... A diesel is around 400k, 60ft ones is about 700k, CNG is around 450~550k, hybrid is about 600~700k, and a community shuttle is about 120~150k... all from my memory.

And sorry about the second point. I meant putting those 280 cars in service will double the current capacity. We have 298 now, 150 MKI, 108 MKII, 40 Rotem.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by cabotp

As for my idea of splitting up the zone. Not sure how you got the idea that a split zone only helps lower the fuel cost. Buses would still go through there regular routes. But a rider would have to pay more depending on whether they cross a zone boundary or not. I would only implement this in the future if distance based fares never come about.

Although distance based fares would be far better.

I was just stating that it could be argued that customers in Vancouver pay more per km. than those in Surrey because they have better service. In addition, remember that there are fuel taxes that also go to Translink. These are paid by car drivers, which Surrey has quite a few of... again because public transit is difficult.

What it comes down to is that Vancouver benefits from having a large customer base in Surrey to help pay for its public transit.

As a consequence, I feel that making it more expensive to use public transit in Surrey by adding zones is a mistake.

[satishreddy]

Originally Posted by nname

Can be visualized from this map, maybe



2006 Census.

That is a beautiful map! Thanks, nname. I love you, man? woman?

What are the units? Density per square km?

As you can all see, there is high density along Broadway and 10th all the way to the UBC Endowment lands. The Endowment lands don't have high density, but they do have one of the top three transit destinations in Metro Vancouver.

[paradigm4]

I would simply point out how the Tri-Cities have even less density than sections of Surrey but are getting SkyTrain (hopefully!). Transit investments have as much to do with the existing realities of the region and its current density, as well as shaping growth for the future. In no way am I saying SkyTrain is needed for Surrey or even appropriate for the South Fraser, but the ongoing argument of current density rates is not the whole story.

Frankly, the towers that have popped up along the Millennium Line would never have occurred had there not been a SkyTrain line built there.

[racc]

It looks like Metro Vancouver's position on the Millennium Line extension is far more nuanced than reported in the media. They seem to support the extension to as far as Arbutus at the same time as the Surrey expansion. It is the extension to UBC that would take longer. This strategy would seem to favour SkyTrain as it makes little sense to force people going to UBC to transfer twice.

It also cuts the initial cost of the project by 50%. A 1.4 billion extension to Arbutus somehow sounds much better than a $2.8 billion extension to UBC.

From:
http://www.geoffmeggs.ca/2010/09/06/desp...dway-rapid-transit-and-surrey-expansion/

Despite media reports, Metro growth plan leaves room for Broadway rapid transit and Surrey expansion
Has Metro Vancouver decided to dump the UBC-Broadway corridor as a transit priority in favour of Surrey?

If so, that would be grim news for the thousands of riders jammed on the 99 B-Line, the 84 and the many other routes headed to UBC.

That was certainly the tenor of comments by Metro Vancouver chief administrative officer Johnny Carline in this story by Vancouver Sun reporter Kelly Sinoski. Carline was speaking at a meeting of Metro’s planning committee, which was reviewing the latest draft of the Regional Growth Strategy.

That’s why I attempted in my response to resist any attempt to pit Surrey against Vancouver while defending the need for investment on the Broadway corridor, where ridership now is equal to that on the Millennium Line. (My comments provoked this question from Beyond Robson, which wonders what I have against Surrey. Answer: nothing, but I also want action to help riders on Broadway, who come from all over the region.)

But a closer reading of Carline’s written comments tells a different story: Surrey and Vancouver investments have an equal priority, if the Vancouver portion is limited to the Broadway Corridor between Main and Arbutus where most of the ridership is now.

In Sinoski’s report, Carline apparently rejected any investment in a rapid transit line to UBC in favour of more Surrey expansion. In one paraphrased comment, Sinoski says Carline believes “it wouldn’t be prudent to spend its [Translink's] limited pot of money in Vancouver when there is a bigger need in Surrey and other areas south of the Fraser.”

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.”

Last year, both the Translink Council of Mayors and the Metro Board voted unanimously to support a 10-year plan that included both, a proposal rejected by the Province because it did not include funding for the Evergreen Line. In fact, all three investments are crucial to the future of the region.

Translink’s initital assessment of the UBC-Broadway options will be available within weeks. A phased expansion, first to Arbutus and later to UBC, may be the prudent course. But to leave Broadway out altogether would be just plain wrong.

Here is the key paragraph from Carline’s letter:

One area where there might not have been complete consensus was in setting transit investment priorities. The plan acknowledges TransLink’s role in the planning and delivery of the regional transit system, but also recognizes the need to link transit investments to growth and land use development objectives and the role of the Regional Growth Strategy.

To that end, the RGS recognizes for rapid transit investment purposes, three overriding priorities: the need to reinforce the development of and shape the travel patterns associated with the north east sector focused on the Coquitlam Regional City Centre; and the need to reinforce the development of and shape the travel patterns in the area south of the Fraser focused on the Surrey Metro Centre; and the need to connect the central Broadway portion of the Metro Core to the eastern and southern part of the transit system.

These translate into the following rapid transit investment priorities: the Evergreen Line (“Priority 1”), the expansion of transit south of the Fraser River to connect to Urban Centres in that part of the region to the Surrey Metro Centre (“Priority 2”) and the westward extension of the ‘Broadway line’ in some form to Central Broadway as far west perhaps as Arbutus (also “Priority 2”). [The first and third of these are essentially remaining priorities from the 1996 regional growth strategy (the LRSP) and the second is clearly the pressing priority for the next phase of growth within the region].

The concern was expressed that a technical study was being undertaken by TransLink on the possible linkages form central Broadway to UBC and the suggestion made that “Priority 2” include expansion to the main campus of the University of British Columbia (UBC), pending the results of the rapid transit technical studies currently being undertaken by TransLink.

We recognize that this study involves a rigorous analysis of alternatives and will yield valuable insights. However, in our view the issue there is a fundamental policy issue than needs to be recognized. Given the financial situation facing TransLink, the Province and the Federal Government it is difficult to be optimistic about rapid transit lines being constructed more rapidly than they have in the past. Nonetheless, the plan identifies two complete new lines and the completion of the Broadway line as a priority for supporting, serving and shaping regional growth. This is consistent with past policies.

[twoNeurons]

A two-phase approach makes a world of sense for the broadway corridor.

[Whalleyboy]

I got a plan lets drop the ever green line and do surrey and broadway instead lol=P

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I was just stating that it could be argued that customers in Vancouver pay more per km. than those in Surrey because they have better service. In addition, remember that there are fuel taxes that also go to Translink. These are paid by car drivers, which Surrey has quite a few of... again because public transit is difficult.

What it comes down to is that Vancouver benefits from having a large customer base in Surrey to help pay for its public transit.

As a consequence, I feel that making it more expensive to use public transit in Surrey by adding zones is a mistake.

That is why I said in my first post about splitting up zone 3. That it is currently is not split to appease people for the much lower transit service in the area.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

That is a beautiful map! Thanks, nname. I love you, man? woman?

What are the units? Density per square km?

As you can all see, there is high density along Broadway and 10th all the way to the UBC Endowment lands. The Endowment lands don't have high density, but they do have one of the top three transit destinations in Metro Vancouver.

Those numbers would be in "sq km"

[Political_R]

Broadway should be priority number 1. The infrastructure will be used to capacity. Although I do wonder, if the Evergreen line was not constructed, where would trains turn around on the M-line? Would a turn around be practical? Or would it be better to have the Evergreen Line to handle every 2-4 minute service from UBC? Either way, Skytrain would have to run every 90 seconds to UBC from Broadway-Commercial and beyond.

Broadway should be the priority corridor and built as soon as possible unless Evergreen line is needed to help with train turn arounds. The ridership is there, it needs grade separated Skytrain. It is time to get it done.

[DKaz]

How it transit more expensive in Surrey than Vancouver?

[usog]

Originally Posted by DKaz

How it transit more expensive in Surrey than Vancouver?

Convenience/value verses amount paid?

[amor de cosmos]

that's a great map!

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Political_R

Broadway should be priority number 1. The infrastructure will be used to capacity. Although I do wonder, if the Evergreen line was not constructed, where would trains turn around on the M-line? Would a turn around be practical? Or would it be better to have the Evergreen Line to handle every 2-4 minute service from UBC?

One of the plans put forth by Translink implied that every 2nd M-line train will go to Evergreen, and the remainder will go to Columbia (and turn around there). Same as what's done on Canada Line. But I think that no final decision has been made.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by DKaz

How it transit more expensive in Surrey than Vancouver?

The ridership is lower in Surrey(and Richmond and all outlying areas) thus fares do not pay for all of the transit service and needs to be subsidized. Whereas in Vancouver with the higher ridership, fares pay more(or all) of the transit service. So not more total cost in $ per km is roughly the same, just is more expensive to translink due to the additional subsidies needed.

[Millennium2002]

The problem with using the single census map for Vancouver is exactly that... you can't compare with other places like Calgary, which has an LRT system.

So... I went ahead and looked all over Statistics Canada for the info. However, I couldn't find it. Luckily, there were two other maps (or animations that is) that contained similar info:

35 Years of Population Change in Calgary

35 Years of Population Change in Vancouver

With the two maps at hand, it was easier to make a comparison, although the maps don't have scales for some reason.

Things I noted:

- The NE corner densified rapidly around the time that they built the LRT, but the density hasn't changed much since then.
- In other areas it was easy to see that the LRT's construction also indirectly increased the density in some areas, although not by a significantly high degree
- Surrey in contrast does have much more "red zone" density than Surrey, especially in the "eight-figure loop" area encompassing Whalley, Guildford, Fleetwood, Nordel, Newton, and Scottsdale... and this is without LRT or improved transit to begin with.

I therefore concede that SkyTrain, rather than LRT, would be the best choice in the aforementioned eight-figure Surrey loop area.

Having said that, areas outside the eight-figure loop (Cloverdale, Langley, White Rock, and Semiahmoo) have much less density and would be better served by an LRT system. I also still believe that the entire Broadway corridor should be upgraded due to its higher local density and importance... and the improvements should be done in one massive step to avoid inconvenient transfers.

[nname]

You can see the yellow area for Calgary is expanding and expanding every census, while the one for Vancouver is much more confined, especially for the past 10 years.

Originally Posted by madmigs

The ridership is lower in Surrey(and Richmond and all outlying areas) thus fares do not pay for all of the transit service and needs to be subsidized. Whereas in Vancouver with the higher ridership, fares pay more(or all) of the transit service. So not more total cost in $ per km is roughly the same, just is more expensive to translink due to the additional subsidies needed.

The boarding per service hour is about half in Surrey compared to Vancouver, which pretty much means that it would have half the cost recovery as Vancouver.

Coquitlam and Langley has slightly lower boarding per hours than Surrey, but givens that about half of the routes in both regions are community shuttles, so I expect a higher cost recovery from them.

Maple Ridge, on the other hand, is just pulling everything down...

PS. The data was from 2007.