Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[logan5]

With its wide streets and long blocks, BRT would be perfect for Surry. Signal priority would be easy to implement, as opposed to Broadway, where there are too many buses and too many signals. With signal priority, and median bus lanes, BRT is true rapid transit.

For the price of 5km of Skytrain, you could get at least 40 km of BRT. Average cost of BRT, from Wikipedia, is 8 million/km.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

If one wants to build a bus sytem on a grid, then the buses will have to go through the low density, as well as the high density places.

Yes, but if you want to provide a good transit service that provides the ability for people to travel within Surrey, a grid is by far the best way to do it. See: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html

[logan5]

There are some gaps, but Surrey appears to be using an 800m transit grid. Looking from Google Earth anyways, bus service doesn't look all that bad in Surrey.

[satishreddy]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, but if you want to provide a good transit service that provides the ability for people to travel within Surrey, a grid is by far the best way to do it. See: http://www.humantransit.org/2010/02/the-power-and-pleasure-of-grids.html

I agree that a grid is probably the best way to provide people (Surrey) with good transit service. My point is that one cannot provide "Vancouver-level" service, which means buses at 10 - 15 minute intervals or more frequent all day, in Surrey because there is not the population density to support it. Of course one could provide such a service with massive subsidy.

[satishreddy]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

The density argument frankly is sort of sitting on unstable soil. There's enough ridership on several corridors to justify say BRT or maybe even LRT.

What I would be concerned about is whether Surrey can tap into those rapid transit plans and make them actually more cost effective over time through TOD developments (and no, suburb expansion and park and rides don't count!), because at the moment it doesn't seem like they'll want to do anything other than suburbs and townhomes that essentially squander any development potential and reduce the region's ability to recoup costs. Remember that rapid transit in particular is a very big investment; and unlike before with the politicized Millennium Line, TransLink now has to be able to see how it can get more ridership and pay off the line down the road. Unfortunately, Surrey atm hasn't offered anything of late other than a City Centre redevelop which by itself can be served by the Expo Line already.

My argument: high density is required for a transit grid(network), unless one is prepared to provide massive subsidies.

Your argument: the density argument is unstable and then in the next paragraph you state that Surrey should make rapid transit plans more cost effective with TOD, which means high density development.

Thanks for making my point.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by satishreddy

There is a reason why Surrey doesn't have well-connected frequent service like Vancouver. It doesn't have the density.

According to the 2006 Census, Surrey has about 395K people and 122.5 sq miles, which gives a density of about 3225 people per square mile. Of course there are pockets of higher density and areas of lower density. If one wants to build a bus sytem on a grid, then the buses will have to go through the low density, as well as the high density places.

According to the 2006 Census, Vancouver has about 578K people and 44.3 sq miles, which gives an average density of 13047 people per square mile. Even if we exclude the 80K that live in downtown Vancouver, the density in the rest of Vancouver is 11242 people per square mile on average.

The density outside of downtown Vancouver is about 3.5 times that of Surrey. In general, if there are an equal number of bus stops in a square mile in both cities, there are 3.5 times more potential customers in Vancouver in than in Surrey per bus stop.

I have not accounted for density of jobs. But in general, there are more destinations such as schools, jobs, tourist locations, etc in Vancouver than in Surrey.

The bottom line is that to operate "Vancouver-level" bus service in Surrey would require a massive subsidy, much bigger than the one to operate the same service in Vancouver.

In Fall 2009 there was a review by the Ministry of Finance regarding the BC Ferries and Translink.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/ias/pdf_Docs/transportation_governance.pdf

At that time Translink had a large structural deficit. On page 75 of the report it is stated:

The majority of the $130 million structural deficit faced by the Translink is a result of factors other than Canada Line, such as the increase in the operational cost of the bus fleet, particularly into lower ridership, geographically sparse areas.

A those so called density numbers for surrey are not justified 1/3 of surrey is farm land. If you also read my post a while back you would see what i said North Surrey(Whalley, Newton,fleetwood, and guildford) You have a popualtion of over 300,000 and its about the size of Burnaby. So if you look at just that area where people want skytrain expansion I bet the density of that area would justfy it. Note i didnt even include north delta in those numbers. Surrey thats about 1/3 of surrey. another 1/3 of surrey is farm land. the other 1/3 of surrey is kinda the cloverdale and south surrey part which holds the other small populated areas of surrey. which rapid transit shouldnt go just yet but brt routes yes

[Millennium2002]

Well I guess I was trying to highlight another point... that BRT and LRT may be okay but RRT isn't at this point, and that Surrey needs to build denser anyway before these and the RRT option becomes viable. Does that make sense, or am I perplexing you more? =S I apologize if I wasn't specific enough. ^^;

[officedweller]

There's also the growth-serving versus growth-shaping debate as well.

The whole build out of rapid transit lines to date was based on the Livable Region Strategic Plan and a growth-shaping strategy (i.e. does Guildford compare to Port Moody or Coquitlam? or rather, does Guildford compare to Coquitlam when Coquitlam was promised the Evergreen Line?)

Having the RRT main branches "end" a given dstance from downtown Vancouver also seems reasonable - and LRT feeder systems can then funnel riders to the RRT from "lower" density areas. That's fine for Richmond and Steveston and even Ladner.

The factor that comes into play in the case of Surrey (unlike Richmond) is that if Surrey is eventually going to be a 2nd downtown core for the region, will whatever is built now serve it into the future? That may not be a question of RRT versus LRT, but may be more a question of the characteristics/specifications to which the system is built.
i.e. exclusive RoW LRTs or shared RoW LRTs in roadways (like others have mentioned, an LRT isn't gong to be ripped up to "update" it) - that's a bit like the Edmonton downtown LRT tunnel versus the Calgary at-grade downtown LRT and the consequences (expansion delays in Edmonton, future capacity issues in Calgary).

And there's no reason that a city cannot have multiple types of systems.

[Whalleyboy]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's also the growth-serving versus growth-shaping debate as well.

The whole build out of rapid transit lines to date was based on the Livable Region Strategic Plan and a growth-shaping strategy (i.e. does Guildford compare to Port Moody or Coquitlam? or rather, does Guildford compare to Coquitlam when Coquitlam was promised the Evergreen Line?)

Having the RRT main branches "end" a given dstance from downtown Vancouver also seems reasonable - and LRT feeder systems can then funnel riders to the RRT from "lower" density areas. That's fine for Richmond and Steveston and even Ladner.

The factor that comes into play in the case of Surrey (unlike Richmond) is that if Surrey is eventually going to be a 2nd downtown core for the region, will whatever is built now serve it into the future? That may not be a question of RRT versus LRT, but may be more a question of the characteristics/specifications to which the system is built.
i.e. exclusive RoW LRTs or shared RoW LRTs in roadways (like others have mentioned, an LRT isn't gong to be ripped up to "update" it) - that's a bit like the Edmonton downtown LRT tunnel versus the Calgary at-grade downtown LRT and the consequences (expansion delays in Edmonton, future capacity issues in Calgary).

And there's no reason that a city cannot have multiple types of systems.

see that there the biggest flaw in thinking. only about 15%(i think its that) goes across the river to work in Vancouver from surrey. Surrey is a blue collar work area and majority of its population works with in the city itself. SoF dont need transit to get to Vancouver. They need to be able to get around SoF. Currently pur system is to focused on the old way fo thinking and thats everyone works dt which isnt true for our region

On top of all this Surrey has some of the youngest population in metro Vancouver. By putting routes for them to use and getting them into the habit of using transit shapes far better then them getting use to driving. cause once you start driving SoF your likely not gonna want to take transit anymore

[Millennium2002]

There is such thing called traffic calming that can be put in place to rectify the problem of encouraging drivers onto transit.

But really, when people see something flying past them during a commute, it'll most likely make them want to take it too. So I doubt we need to "build a habit" from the very start.

Heck it's an engrained habit here that everyone should have a driver's license when they're young even though you probably won't use it that much for the first several years. xD I myself have one and yet I only drive on weekends as "practice" as my father and sister take out their cars on weekdays. I sorta wish there was one so that I could go to SFU but then I'd have to deal with parking fees and all. Compare that to the dirt-cheap U-Pass, and I'll happily sleep on buses any day on my commute to school over paying parking fees.

[dubsH]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

see that there the biggest flaw in thinking. only about 15%(i think its that) goes across the river to work in Vancouver from surrey. Surrey is a blue collar work area and majority of its population works with in the city itself. SoF dont need transit to get to Vancouver. They need to be able to get around SoF. Currently pur system is to focused on the old way fo thinking and thats everyone works dt which isnt true for our region

On top of all this Surrey has some of the youngest population in metro Vancouver. By putting routes for them to use and getting them into the habit of using transit shapes far better then them getting use to driving. cause once you start driving SoF your likely not gonna want to take transit anymore

I don't understand why there needs to be RRT right away in Surrey when a true B-line hasn't even been tested. As much as I agree that RRT (especially visible SkyTrain) provides incentive for people to get out of their cars, it's a waste of money for Surrey. You said it yourself best - if people aren't going to Vancouver, then why do they need to be hooked up to the SkyTrain system? If I was from Surrey, I would prefer a dozen new routes and 100s of new buses than a SkyTrain that only goes to Newton (or Guildford/Fleetwood) for the same cost for now. Fast-tracking 2 new B-lines should be the priority at this point, with consideration for land acquisition for future RRT lines and stations (but not until Evergreen and UBC-Broadway Lines are complete).

Surrey has had SkyTrain for roughly 20 years now, and look at the amount of highrises/TOD built since then. Now compare that to Metrotown/Joyce/Edmonds/Brentwood or downtown Richmond (BEFORE the Canada Line was built). Surrey has not yet shown an aptitude for TOD (but that is slowly changing).

I wouldn't complain about lack of transit in Surrey. I know it's a Catch 22 as people of Surrey prefer roads to transit because transit stinks. The tax dollars to TransLink isn't only for the full buses running in Vancouver; don't forget that it (along with money from NoF) also paid for the Golden Ears and will pay for the new Port Mann (and future Patullo). When was the last time that Vancouver got a new bridge (besides Canada Line via North Arm)?

Bottom line: get a B-line, build up ridership, and then upgrade. Too bad commuter rail isn't more viable from Surrey and the rest of the Valley at this point in time.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by dubsH

...if people aren't going to Vancouver, then why do they need to be hooked up to the SkyTrain system?

This is exactly the decision that needs to be made. The people and politicians in Surrey need to make sure they don't demand Skytrain extensions just because that's what other regions are getting. The sense I'm getting is that the major problem is that people can't get around within Surrey, and Skytrain won't solve that.

Originally Posted by dubsH

I know it's a Catch 22 as people of Surrey prefer roads to transit because transit stinks.

It's not just transit, it's the whole way the city has been built up around the idea of using cars for transportation. Just look at the stores - unless you're in a mall it takes 5 or 10 minutes to walk from one store to another while you dodge cars looking for parking spaces. Stores are set back from the sidewalks behind acres of parking. It's actually impractical to take transit within Surrey because the there's almost only one place you can visit per transit trip without having to walk excessively.

Compare that to Vancouver's commercial corridors like Broadway, Fraser, Commercial/Victoria, East Hastings, Kerrisdale, etc - they're wall-to-wall stores.

It's a mess, and there are no cheap solutions.

[SFUVancouver]

There are a number of ways to provide input on the UBC Line during this crucial second round of public consultation. However they are time sensitive.

Monday, April 4th
-Online "webinar", an hour-long presentation and then Q&A session. Sign up here: http://uri.mediaco.ca/u/translink_020211

Tuesday, April 5th
-Community Workshop. Kitsilano Secondary School, Large Gymnasium, 2550 W.10th Ave, Vancouver. 6pm-9pm

Wednesday, April 6th
-Community Workshop. Tenth Avenue Alliance Church, 11 W.10th Ave, Vancouver. 6pm-9pm.

Online Questionnaire
- http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-th...it-Study/Get-Involved/Questionnaire.aspx


The revised Phase 2 Public Consultation options for the UBC Line:

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) | Centre of street, dedicated lanes with barrier, in-street stations, some signal priority.

Source

Light Rail Transit (LRT) #1 | Centre of Street, dedicated corridor with barrier, in-street stations, some signal priority.

Source

Light Rail Transit (LRT) #2 | Centre of Street, dedicated corridor with barrier, in-street stations, some signal priority.

Source

Rail Rapid Transit (RRT/SkyTrain branding) | Bored tunnel, full grade separation

Source

Combo 1 - RRT and LRT | Millennium SkyTrain Line extended from VCC-Clark to Arbutus in a bored tunnel, LRT from Main Street Science World to UBC in centre of street, dedicated corridor with barrier, in-street stations, some signal priority

Source

Combo 2 - RRT and BRT | Millennium SkyTrain extended from VCC-Clark to Arbutus in a bored tunnel, BRT from Commercial Drive to UBC, centre of street, dedicated lanes with barrier, in-street stations, some signal priority.

Source

Best Bus | Significantly enhanced level of local bus service and enhanced 99 B-Line (BRT-light)

Source


Street integration of LRT and BRT.

Standard four-lane section of Broadway or 10th Avenue.

Source

Standard six-lane section of Central Broadway (Commercial Drive to Arbutus)

Source


Intersection integration of LRT or BRT.

No turn restrictions at major intersections. LRT and BRT would stop and wait for the lights to change and the intersection to clear before proceeding.

Source

Left turn restrictions would be in place for moderately busy intersections. LRT and BRT would stop and wait for the lights to change and the intersection to clear before proceeding.

Source

"Right in and right out" intersections would be closed to through traffic perpendicular to Broadway/10th Avenue. LRT or BRT would continue through intersection without stopping.

Source


Representative street cross sections for each section of the corridor for LRT and BRT.

University Boulevard in UBC (everything west from Blanca)

Source

Blanca to Alma ("Point Grey Village")

Source

Alma to Arbutus

Source

Arbutus to Commercial Drive (Central Broadway, city's second downtown)

Source

False Creek segment for LRT Option 1 and Combo Option 1 (Main Street-Science World station to Arbutus and Broadway)

Source

Great Northern Way segment from sub-options in LRT option 1 and LRT option 2.

Source


UBC Line Rapid Transit Study homepage:
http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-th...d-Transit-Study/Alternative-Designs.aspx

[jlousa]

SFUVan, Thanks for taking the time to capture the images from the boards. Now that the thread is back on topic lets keep it on the UBC line. Any talk about what should happen in Surrey should be placed in the SOF transit thread here

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162194

Thanks for understanding, continue on.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jlousa

SFUVan, Thanks for taking the time to capture the images from the boards. Now that the thread is back on topic lets keep it on the UBC line. Any talk about what should happen in Surrey should be placed in the SOF transit thread here

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162194

Thanks for understanding, continue on.

Even as an outsider, I can imagine the transit frustrations - and volitions - of folks in Surrey. I just looked at that link.. Really interesting and pertinent. Yet it had not been consulted since late 2010.

It's already a separate thread. Could it be named differently?? Focusing more on the precise topic of skytain in surrey, etc etc, only with a different focus and title?
Thank you for you understanding

[Metro-One]

Wow, talk about a congested primary street! This ides should become the poster child for the saying "putting all your eggs in one basket." Of course this isn't really putting all your eggs in one basket, this is more like jamming a hard as you can all of your eggs into one basket! Not only will this make it a bad environment of mass transit and vehicles, but also it leaves no room for expanding sidewalks and looks like a tight fit for bicycles as well.

A new added negative of this surface LRT option down Broadway is that pedestrians will have to walk across the only through traffic lane to reach the platforms.

Am I not the only one who foresees traffic snarls here, along with LRT disruptions due to accidents, not to mention the added pedestrian hazard in having the stations in the middle of the streets?

i think anyone with an ounce of foresight here will only support the skytrain extension proposal (and option B of that) or at the very least Combo 1 with skytrain to Arbutus and LRT science world to UBC, meeting skytrain at Arbutus.

Of course my favorite option, which does not exist, would be skytrain from VCC to UBC, and LRT / Trams from Science World to Arbutus, where it would end with the potential to be extended south

[city-dweller]

Has anyone looked at how the options being considered affect the City of Vancouver's long term "street car" plan?

Here is the link:
http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/streetcar/index.htm

[Zassk]

I think we can all agree that, in the ideal case, the Vancouver Streetcar would be built west from Granville Island along the old right-of-way, terminating at the Millennium Line station at Arbutus. This would connect the population/businesses around 4th & Burrard with the rapid transit network and add further ridership. And it would position the streetcar for a future extension down Arbutus if that ever became feasible.

[crazyjoeda]

but also it leaves no room for expanding sidewalks and looks like a tight fit for bicycles as well.

That's one problem that wont be an issue because cyclists use the "Off Broadway" route that parallels Broadway on 8th Avenue. It's a really nice route too.

i think anyone with an ounce of foresight here will only support the skytrain extension proposal (and option B of that) or at the very least Combo 1 with skytrain to Arbutus and LRT science world to UBC, meeting skytrain at Arbutus.

Of course my favorite option, which does not exist, would be skytrain from VCC to UBC, and LRT / Trams from Science World to Arbutus, where it would end with the potential to be extended south

I like Combo 1 because I think it's the best value, but maybe with Skytrain a bit further to McDonald or Alma. We would get Skytrain through the busiest and most developed section of Broadway plus we also get a completely separate light rail line serving the waterfront. As Metro-One pointed out the light rail could spur at Arbutus and finally make use of that rail right of way. It could also extend North from Science World following the cities purposed street car route into Gas Town and Stanley Park.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

That's one problem that wont be an issue because cyclists use the "Off Broadway" route that parallels Broadway on 8th Avenue. It's a really nice route too.



I like Combo 1 because I think it's the best value, but maybe with Skytrain a bit further to McDonald or Alma. We would get Skytrain through the busiest and most developed section of Broadway plus we also get a completely separate light rail line serving the waterfront. As Metro-One pointed out the light rail could spur at Arbutus and finally make use of that rail right of way. It could also extend North from Science World following the cities purposed street car route into Gas Town and Stanley Park.

Personally I would prefer "full RRT to UBC", but I admit Combo 1 is a liveable alternative. The one issue I have is the station spacing for the LRT-only portion. Doesn't LRT typically have 400-500m station spacing, vs the 800m-1000m for RRT? Why does the graphic show so few stations?