Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[dleung]

That debate converted me. Now I'm only in favor of subway to as far as Granville or Arbutus. After that, the subway would have skipped the worst of the traffic on Broadway, and various local and express trolley buses can do the rest. As luxurious as it would be for someone in a far-flung suburb like Coquitlam to have a one-seat skytrain ride all the way to a remote university campus on the other end of the city... most of that construction will be wasted on areas that will never densify into the high-rise node model consistent with the M-line. Nor would anyone want that kind of development on the beautiful West side. Just look at the stuff going up at Marine and Cambie - those aren't neighbourhoods. The urban form that supports streetcar - evenly distributed mid-rise density throughout the city... that I support much more. Skylines should be the exception rather than the rule; otherwise the nice buildings will be lost in a sea of bleh. At the end of the day, the money would go many times further with mid-capacity transit.

Still, I rather have the UBC line than a $3.3 billion Port Mann Bridge. There they had the option of going big or half-ass it Vancouver style. They should have half-assed it. A six lane bridge would have costed less than half as much... heck, all the upgrades necessary to keep the bridge as-is would have only costed $200M. We would have had money to get skytrain to Arbutus, replace the Patullo bridge and still have some left over.

[Alex Mackinnon]

So, what you're saying is half ass the most important infrastructure upgrade in the last 30 years for a couple of periphery projects that will get done anyways as soon as we stop being so cheap? A 6 lane bridge would not much cheaper than a 10 lane bridge. Construction and engineering costs don't work on a linear scale. Bigger in this case is almost always more cost effective for what you get.

Without a significant upgrade there is no way in hell anyone would be willing to pay tolls on the PMB either. Why pay $6/day for next to no service improvement? Would you put of with that?

A city full of half-ass isn't an efficient city, and it certainly isn't going to be one capable of a supporting constant string of half assed upgrades. Every time we screw up a big infrastructure upgrade we just end up costing ourselves billions with nothing to show for it. For once we need to actually build big with a cohesive, well developed plan which addresses all modes of transportation. We need the roads, highways, buses, trams and skytrains.

The problem is people (Condon, Zwei, et Al) advocate a universal solution, or fail to mention a rounded solution. From my perspective as an engineer, if someone is trying to sell you a universal solution to anything it's probably a load.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by dleung

That debate converted me. Now I'm only in favor of subway to as far as Granville or Arbutus. After that, the subway would have skipped the worst of the traffic on Broadway, and various local and express trolley buses can do the rest. As luxurious as it would be for someone in a far-flung suburb like Coquitlam to have a one-seat skytrain ride all the way to a remote university campus on the other end of the city... most of that construction will be wasted on areas that will never densify into the high-rise node model consistent with the M-line. Nor would anyone want that kind of development on the beautiful West side. Just look at the stuff going up at Marine and Cambie - those aren't neighbourhoods. The urban form that supports streetcar - evenly distributed mid-rise density throughout the city... that I support much more. Skylines should be the exception rather than the rule; otherwise the nice buildings will be lost in a sea of bleh. At the end of the day, the money would go many times further with mid-capacity transit.

Still, I rather have the UBC line than a $3.3 billion Port Mann Bridge. There they had the option of going big or half-ass it Vancouver style. They should have half-assed it. A six lane bridge would have costed less than half as much... heck, all the upgrades necessary to keep the bridge as-is would have only costed $200M. We would have had money to get skytrain to Arbutus, replace the Patullo bridge and still have some left over.

So the debate converted you from what. I would say that the subway needs to go as far west as Arbutus at the minimum. Anything after that would be gravy at least for today. What the future ridership will be like will determine if extending past that point could be looked at.

The best part about extending towards UBC is that there is a finite end to the line. Its not like extending in Surrey to lets say Newton where you could keep extending after that. With UBC once you reach it that is it you have reached the western end. So while the cost to extend to UBC eventually, might be high. You never have to worry about extending past there in the future ever.

Uh unless we have the Big One and suddenly the landscape changes dramatically

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The best part about extending towards UBC is that there is a finite end to the line. Its not like extending in Surrey to lets say Newton where you could keep extending after that. With UBC once you reach it that is it you have reached the western end. So while the cost to extend to UBC eventually, might be high. You never have to worry about extending past there in the future ever.

The best part is that it's a large trip generator/destination at the end of the line.
i.e. compare to your typical radial spoke diagram where the end of the line is in the boonies and there is no counter commuting or off-peak traffic.
That's one of the reasons that SkyTrain/Canada Line ridership is so high - the lines terminate in regional town centres so there is still some counter-commuting and off-peak traffic (even if those town centres have not delivered to expectations).
As soon as you decide to replace buses and form radial [LRT] systems that start in the low density suburbs to feed into those regional town centres (and in turn feed SkyTrain), that's where you'll have lower ridership.

Interesting read here:
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/07/how-paris-is-like-los-angeles.html

[Mac Write]

UBC isn't the end of the line. First they could extend it inside the campus to allow for quicker access to areas (1-2 stations), or they could go for it and tunnel/bridge from UBC too Downtown Vancouver and/or the North shore.

Doing another line from downtown to UBC might be good (yes you have Canada Line to UBC line). Especially if UBC pays for part of it.

[SpongeG]

it does inside the campus for 2 stations

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

So, what you're saying is half ass the most important infrastructure upgrade in the last 30 years for a couple of periphery projects that will get done anyways as soon as we stop being so cheap? A 6 lane bridge would not much cheaper than a 10 lane bridge. Construction and engineering costs don't work on a linear scale. Bigger in this case is almost always more cost effective for what you get.

Without a significant upgrade there is no way in hell anyone would be willing to pay tolls on the PMB either. Why pay $6/day for next to no service improvement? Would you put of with that?

A city full of half-ass isn't an efficient city, and it certainly isn't going to be one capable of a supporting constant string of half assed upgrades. Every time we screw up a big infrastructure upgrade we just end up costing ourselves billions with nothing to show for it. For once we need to actually build big with a cohesive, well developed plan which addresses all modes of transportation. We need the roads, highways, buses, trams and skytrains.

Yes, a $200 million upgrade with no tolls is money we'll never get back, but try getting back $3.3 billion through tolls... uh not going to happen. 3/4 of a million people live in Surrey and beyond, and most of them don't give a crap about rail-for-the-valley... the provincial government basically appeased voters and justified the bridge with "creates jobs"/"reduces congestion". Both benefits are as temporary as they come, as demonstrated in countless other sprawl-loving metropolitan areas.

Yes, we need proper roads among other levels of transportation, but 10 lanes, really? Stuff like that doesn't even exist in big cities like Paris, Berlin, London, etc... most highways in Europe are 4-6 lanes, occasionally 8.

I oppose sktrain to UBC not because we don't have funds, but rather it's a poor allocation of funds... if it's going to be phased in anyways, I rather they build all of it right away. Subway to Arbutus, let alone Granville, would be less than half the distance and cost. The problem, as I stressed already...

Originally Posted by dleung

most of that construction will be wasted on areas that will never densify into the high-rise node model consistent with the M-line. Nor would anyone want that kind of development on the beautiful West side. Just look at the stuff going up at Marine and Cambie - those aren't neighbourhoods. The urban form that supports streetcar - evenly distributed mid-rise density throughout the city... that I support much more. Skylines should be the exception rather than the rule; otherwise the nice buildings will be lost in a sea of bleh

...is with the nodial urban form that it encourages. The whole stretch from Kits to Point Grey is a mature and cohesive low-density area that has everything to gain from streetcars and more mid-density development. Skytrain all the way to UBC instead of Arbutus, will encourage spikes of density that are poorly connected on a pedestrian scale. The line will be well-used indeed, but only because it created that kind of demand (as opposed to demand for neighbourhood-oriented transit like streetcars). All the station stops required to justify subway will not make the trip much shorter for the 45,000 UBC students who rather whisk through the West Side on express buses. A solution that meets the needs of everyone in the area would be local trams, and express trolley bus service beginning at Arbutus. If there's anything that I've leared from visiting numerous European cities is to always design a wide boulevard into any neighbourhood axis, as a future right-of-way to accomodate such projects.

[djh]

Originally Posted by dleung

The whole stretch from Kits to Point Grey is a mature and cohesive low-density area that has everything to gain from streetcars and more mid-density development. Skytrain all the way to UBC instead of Arbutus, will encourage spikes of density that are poorly connected on a pedestrian scale. The line will be well-used indeed, but only because it created that kind of demand (as opposed to demand for neighbourhood-oriented transit like streetcars). All the station stops required to justify subway will not make the trip much shorter for the 45,000 UBC students who rather whisk through the West Side on express buses. A solution that meets the needs of everyone in the area would be local trams, and express trolley bus service beginning at Arbutus. If there's anything that I've leared from visiting numerous European cities is to always design a wide boulevard into any neighbourhood axis, as a future right-of-way to accomodate such projects.

...or a solution to your concern is to have 0 (very extreme) or 1 (realistic compromise) skytrain stops along that stretch. Say, 1 stop in the most commercial stretch of that area - say, 10th and Sasamat. That's the only stop between UBC and Arbutus. The skytrain would remain a rapid route to UBC, the locals won't complain about hordes of us scum in "their" neighbourhood - unless we're spending money in "their" shops, and the streets would become unclogged with hundreds of 99 buses, leaving room for the 9 bus to operate as you suggest - as a local trip option (and a feeder service for the skytrain). Wouldn't need trams then.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I don't think the development pattern on West Broadway would change much with Skytrain. Anything past Arbutus is probably just going to setting into a fairly uniform 4-7 floors of residential development. A few towers on the Safeway site at Sasamat are likely, because the neighbourhood is already dotted with a few apartment towers. The densest development is likely to occur at UBC and the Golf Course. It's all going to get a good whack with the density stick.

UBC CCP wants to have 51,000 beds on campus in it's newest plan. While that may appear to reduce the amount of people commuting to UBC, you still need to provide mobility to those people. Many students who will live on campus will also still have to venture off campus for work. The market housing portions of the development also are only partially restricted (50% I believe) to UBC related residents. It's pretty feasible that there could be upwards of 80-100,000 different people on campus in a given day. A good 10-20,000 of which could be commuting away from Campus.

The Golf Course developments could similarly house tens of thousands of people. It's a total unknown, set to develop in 2030.

UBC has no plans to provide turn around areas for a greatly expanded bus fleet. Also trust me dleung, after having had to take the Bline on campus for 4 years, very few people still have all that much love for it.

[Zassk]

The densification that will occur on the UBC line is at the western end, on the endowment lands. Dleung is completely missing or ignoring this. He should think of UBC as Vancouver's suburb to the west, and as a major part of the Broadway transit problem, rather than as a part of a mature low-density Vancouver neighbourhood.

[aberdeen5698]

It would be interesting to do a study on what kind of affordable student housing could be built at UBC for the cost of extending Skytrain from Granville or Arbutus to the campus. If the money were used to house people on-campus instead of increasing transit capacity, I wonder if it would reduce transit demand to the point where express bus service for that last leg of the journey would be adequate.

Ideally, people who work and study at UBC should be able to live there, thus avoiding the need to travel altogether. That would be the "greenest" solution.

Of course people who live and work/study at UBC still need to travel elsewhere, but with nowhere near the same frequency, and not always at peak times.

[satishreddy]

Originally Posted by dleung

...is with the nodial urban form that it encourages. The whole stretch from Kits to Point Grey is a mature and cohesive low-density area that has everything to gain from streetcars and more mid-density development. Skytrain all the way to UBC instead of Arbutus, will encourage spikes of density that are poorly connected on a pedestrian scale. The line will be well-used indeed, but only because it created that kind of demand (as opposed to demand for neighbourhood-oriented transit like streetcars). All the station stops required to justify subway will not make the trip much shorter for the 45,000 UBC students who rather whisk through the West Side on express buses. A solution that meets the needs of everyone in the area would be local trams, and express trolley bus service beginning at Arbutus. If there's anything that I've leared from visiting numerous European cities is to always design a wide boulevard into any neighbourhood axis, as a future right-of-way to accomodate such projects.

Why do you say that Kits to Point Grey is a low density area? Look at the map of density of census tracts in Metro Vancouver at the following posting:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162479&page=195

All of Kits is coloured in red, which corresponds to a density of > 5000 people per square km (equivalent to more than 12500 people per square mile.) The density does decrease in Point Grey and the Endowment lands, but a major transportation destination is in the Endowment lands. The picture doesn't include the density of jobs along Broadway.

From 2006 census Vancouver has a population of 578000 and area of 44.3 square miles. The density is > 13000 people per square mile. If one excludes the population of downtown (80000), the average density is more than 11,000per square mile.

[BCPhil]

Yeah, West Broadway is a fairly dense neighborhood (both in housing and in the head, sometimes).

The other thing to is to never say never. While there are a lot of NIBYs in the area, Broadway itself is 100% lined with development; there's not a single SFH anywhere on W Broadway. Most of it is post war commercial. The stratas that are on Broadway are from the past 10 to 15 years. Many of the buildings built on Broadway are of the type that don't last long. They aren't old enough to have been a unique piece of architecture (no heritage value), and not new enough to have been built with things like Earthquake codes or density in mind. Their lives aren't going to be long lived. And the houses in the area aren't sprawling acreages, they are tightly packed war era shacks.

And there HAS been major construction along W Broadway recently, like the Safeway, and the London Drugs/IGA Marketplace development at Vine. There are many properties along Broadway that are similar to what was there before. Those buildings have brought lots of density to the area. That density will put pressure on the houses. Their value will skyrocket because of their value to developers, thus they will be completely unaffordable to people looking for a house. Why buy a $2 million house on 10th or 8th when 4 blocks away they're $1.4 million? The increase in property taxes, plus the profits from selling put a lot of home owners into a position where it's ridiculous not to sell.

And even without redevelopment, much of Skytrain's bread and butter west of Arbutus (not counting UBC) is going to be the bus lines. There are going to be thousands of transfers to and from buses in Van West. Why sit on the #7 all the way through Kits when you could transfer to Skytrain and be downtown in 15 minutes. Or if you are heading to the Broadway core, you need a transfer anyway.

As well, the shops along W Broadway aren't all just local based stores. There are quite a few businesses that would benefit from regional travelers coming into the area. And while trams might seem great because people can window shop from them, I think ACTUAL window shopping is better for a business.

If you want to check out an area, Skytrain forces you to get off and walk the neighborhood. That way people actually go into a store instead of observing it from a fast moving tram. People stop for coffee or snacks, instead of getting them at their tram destination. Commercial drive is a huge success even though people walk it all the way from and back to Commercial Station.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

Why do you say that Kits to Point Grey is a low density area? Look at the map of density of census tracts in Metro Vancouver at the following posting:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162479&page=195

All of Kits is coloured in red, which corresponds to a density of > 5000 people per square km (equivalent to more than 12500 people per square mile.) The density does decrease in Point Grey and the Endowment lands, but a major transportation destination is in the Endowment lands. The picture doesn't include the density of jobs along Broadway.

From 2006 census Vancouver has a population of 578000 and area of 44.3 square miles. The density is > 13000 people per square mile. If one excludes the population of downtown (80000), the average density is more than 11,000per square mile.

I'd be willing to bet the only reason why UBC isn't dark red is because Pacific Spirit Park dilutes the population over a giant area.

[twoNeurons]

I don't get it. Mid-rises can be just as dense as high-rises. Look at Tokyo.

SkyTrain along an artery will NOT turn kits into highrises. Hey, look at the wonders that it's done for Nanaimo, 29th Ave and 22nd St.

The built form in kits will become more dense because more people want to live there, not because of a transit line. Transit through already dense neighbourhoods WILL encourage some houses to become 4-story medium density buildings, but it won't put highrises in Kitsilano.

[SpongeG]

i was reading an article about it from a students perspective and how he has to live far away and misses busses etc.

anyway if UBC cares so much why don't they build more student housing? according to this students writing there is no affordable on campus or near campus housing and he is forced to live in east van and miss classes because of full busses - they are building loads of condos - why not get some kind of okay we let you build 500 units of condos you build us 200 units of student housing or something like that more people can live on campus and not need transit that they than whine about

[CLC]

Prof PC may not want to hear this news: Melbourme, the world's most representative tram-network city, now sees that tram is TOO SLOW and has plan to begin cancelling many stops and turn it to modern light rail.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victori...king-spaces/story-e6frf7kx-1225945349011

Why Vancouver has to go backwards and introduce outdated tram back to streets?

[CLC]

Probably not lots of people affected, Canada Line has been partially down for brief period three times in four days (Saturday+Sunday below Bridgeport, and today between King Edwards <-> OV).

[golog]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

anyway if UBC cares so much why don't they build more student housing

UBC's administrators want to get the most money out of the land they hold, and students who are constantly turning over don't have the power to alter that.

As it stands, a line down Broadway all the way to Blanca would be justified even without UBC's ridership. A lot of justification for the line gets overlooked because of its name, and a me-too syndrome since Evergreen is being built now.

There are many sources and destinations nearby. The density and distribution of which leads to the most profitable conditions of high load factors and short average trips. If my memory serves me right, a Broadway line was the top priority in the mid 90s but when the time came a deal was made to put the Airport line first in time for the Olympics and in exchange the Evergreen line was guaranteed to be bumped up and come next. A Broadway line would be the first grade separated line built to serve the needs of Vancouver.

Originally Posted by CLC

Why Vancouver has to go backwards and introduce outdated tram back to streets?

Trams are fine, but they're directly comparable and in competition with our busses. The ability to travel at-grade and grade-separated is not an advantage since the speed and headways are affected by pedestrian/bike/car traffic along and across the routes. To compensate, there would need to be a station storing a bunch of extra trains at the transition point to keep everything flowing. This whole design also eliminates the savings of automated trains. Grade-separated and at-grade don't mix, at least within the context where the is any advantage to grade-separated.

A good transit system is built in response to demands as well planning to shape future demands. Busses are great in terms of flexibility allowing early testing to begin and then expanding all the way up to a b-line service, where if the transit supply is saturated the large investment in grade-separated transit can be made with confidence in prospective returns. Streetcars are better for mature routes, that will not be outgrown by demand, may have routes not well suited to roads, and where frequent stops with visibility is an asset -- like a kits beach/granville island/science world/gastown route that follows the waterfront. (assuming streetcars have lower operating costs than busses)

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by CLC

Prof PC may not want to hear this news: Melbourme, the world's most representative tram-network city, now sees that tram is TOO SLOW and has plan to begin cancelling many stops and turn it to modern light rail.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victori...king-spaces/story-e6frf7kx-1225945349011

I'm not sure you read the entire article, because it says pretty clearly that "the Government has no plans to reduce the number of tram stops by 25 per cent. As part of its submission process, Infrastructure Australia requires that states demonstrate how they have considered multiple options in planning for and investing in new infrastructure projects."