Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[nname]

Something I posted a while back:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4972735&postcount=3896

[BCPhil]

Just take a drive down Broadway. For the entire length of the road from Arbutus to Alma there is not a single single family home fronting Broadway (well, maybe there is that one but I think it is multi family). The entire street is lined with either older commercial properties (many with apartments above) or newer condo developments. And many of the commercial properties are nearing the age where redevelopment is likely.

Yes, while 41st has a lot of homes that probably have suites, the area along Broadway is all war era bungalows stuffed onto teeny tiny lots. The houses are so tightly packed in along Broadway. And many of the larger homes are actually divided into multiple suites. There is a lot of density along Broadway, much more than along 41st.

Yes, 41st has Kerrisdale, but I would say residents of Kerrisdale are more concerned about getting downtown. Therefore, using the Arbutus corridor for streetcar/lrt would be more wise. It would bring them downtown, and intersect with the Broadway line, which would take them east much quicker than a cross town LRT on 41st.

I'm not saying 41st should never get light rail, but the focus of the Broadway line is Broadway. A longer, slower route down 41st doesn't help Broadway at all. The only reason people would take the 41st line is because the Broadway line isn't built well enough. Broadway and UBC is a priority in Vancouver, and sustainable transit is critical to our future. If we underbuild Broadway to build more somewhere else, it could negatively affect the usefulness of the Broadway line, resulting in lower ridership or high operating costs.

[JoeBugliati]

I [briefly] attended the first info session and I listened to the webinar.

I have always been a proponent of LRT, and initially thought it 'could' be a sustainable alternative for the broadway corridor.

However, after some thoughtful and careful lurking on this forum, despite the high and possibly prohibitive cost, I believe RRT is the correct solution, for many reasons that have recently been cited here.

If skytrain is extended only to Arbutus, and LRT continues to UBC, I believe the many opinions voiced here are correct, in that it would preclude Skytrain from ever extending to UBC in the future.

In addition, if LRT is implemented from Arbutus to UBC, I believe it will need additional stations, thus significantly reducing travel time. My reason for this is, I believe LRT should replace trolley service along the corridor, albeit at a slightly larger distance, ie 400-500m.

One thing I found interesting from the webinar is the response to a question regarding trolley service & LRT. Busby replied something along the line of, "if we implemented LRT, we would have to study the feasibility of trolley service and how it would be integrated.. [bad paraphrase]". I may be wrong but within the context of the conversation, it seemed possible that trolley service would co-exist with any possible LRT implementation, whether it be from Arbutus west or along the whole Broadway corridor. This, I disagree with.

I think in order for LRT to work on Broadway, people have to accept a more 'european' tram notion. LRT wouls replace both the #9 and #99, however it would have to achieve a happy medium between speed (#99) and accessibility (#9), thus adopting something close to 400-500m stops. LRT, in this format, would provide traffic calming (which in reality is traffic redistribution) to Broadway and would probably appease the likes of Prof Condon and Zwei, but from a rapid transit point of view, how much faster would that really be than what we have now? Not to mention how much more capacity could be achieved?

Taking this into account, what is the cost benefit analysis of LRT from VCC or Comercial to UBC? I believe in order for it to achieve it goals, LRT would have to replace the #9 and #99, reducing bus congestion, however, probably only slightly increasing the travel time and creating its own street congestion. Now for some people (Condon) this is a good and sustainable solution. However, we could be spending in upwards of 3-4 billion and only 'slightly' increasing travel times to UBC, adding an extra transfer, and prohibiting any further expansion (RRT) in the future.

My concern is, if we extend Skytrain only to Arbutus and LRT the rest of the way, from a cost stand point, RRT from VCC to UBC is not that much more, and it would allow the CoV, maybe with help from the province, down the road, to implement the street car initiative (which i am a huge proponent of).

In short, even though I think Skytrain technology is cost prohibitive, due to its proprietary technology, i think it is the best solution for the broadway corridor. Skytrain technology has been selected for 2/3 of the line (millennium and evergreen), it is logical to complete it with a seamless, interlined solution.

~joe

[CLC]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The 49 is so busy principally because of increased ridership to Langara and because it is acting as an overflow for other busy routes. I don't see how the 49 can be lumped in with the 41 to make a business case for LRT on 41st. Surely there is a stronger case for lumping the #4 bus in with the Broadway buses. Unlike 41/49, 4th Avenue is actually within walking distance of Broadway.

As for density ...

I am not a proponent of 41th avenue LRT experiment, which can be big mistakes that cannot be undone. The local+express bus approach can be sufficient if Translink is willing to continuously put more buses on 41/49. Right now 49 avenue actually also have an unofficial 49 Express that driver would skips stops, and don't forget some Vancouver South residents also take advantage of limited-stop 430.
Remind that Ken Hardie said population growth+Canada Line are the two top factors of 49 trouble. Population growth (means density growth?) happens all around Metro Vancouver, putting all money at one basket (Arbutus-UBC) may result to disastrous consequences for rest of routes.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by JoeBugliati

I [briefly] attended the first info session and I listened to the webinar.

I have always been a proponent of LRT, and initially thought it 'could' be a sustainable alternative for the broadway corridor.

However, after some thoughtful and careful lurking on this forum, despite the high and possibly prohibitive cost, I believe RRT is the correct solution, for many reasons that have recently been cited here.

If skytrain is extended only to Arbutus, and LRT continues to UBC, I believe the many opinions voiced here are correct, in that it would preclude Skytrain from ever extending to UBC in the future.

In addition, if LRT is implemented from Arbutus to UBC, I believe it will need additional stations, thus significantly reducing travel time. My reason for this is, I believe LRT should replace trolley service along the corridor, albeit at a slightly larger distance, ie 400-500m.

One thing I found interesting from the webinar is the response to a question regarding trolley service & LRT. Busby replied something along the line of, "if we implemented LRT, we would have to study the feasibility of trolley service and how it would be integrated.. [bad paraphrase]". I may be wrong but within the context of the conversation, it seemed possible that trolley service would co-exist with any possible LRT implementation, whether it be from Arbutus west or along the whole Broadway corridor. This, I disagree with.

I think in order for LRT to work on Broadway, people have to accept a more 'european' tram notion. LRT wouls replace both the #9 and #99, however it would have to achieve a happy medium between speed (#99) and accessibility (#9), thus adopting something close to 400-500m stops. LRT, in this format, would provide traffic calming (which in reality is traffic redistribution) to Broadway and would probably appease the likes of Prof Condon and Zwei, but from a rapid transit point of view, how much faster would that really be than what we have now? Not to mention how much more capacity could be achieved?

Taking this into account, what is the cost benefit analysis of LRT from VCC or Comercial to UBC? I believe in order for it to achieve it goals, LRT would have to replace the #9 and #99, reducing bus congestion, however, probably only slightly increasing the travel time and creating its own street congestion. Now for some people (Condon) this is a good and sustainable solution. However, we could be spending in upwards of 3-4 billion and only 'slightly' increasing travel times to UBC, adding an extra transfer, and prohibiting any further expansion (RRT) in the future.

My concern is, if we extend Skytrain only to Arbutus and LRT the rest of the way, from a cost stand point, RRT from VCC to UBC is not that much more, and it would allow the CoV, maybe with help from the province, down the road, to implement the street car initiative (which i am a huge proponent of).

In short, even though I think Skytrain technology is cost prohibitive, due to its proprietary technology, i think it is the best solution for the broadway corridor. Skytrain technology has been selected for 2/3 of the line (millennium and evergreen), it is logical to complete it with a seamless, interlined solution.

~joe

Just out of curiosity, what were your personal reasons for supporting LRT, and what exactly were the different viewpoints that caused you to change your opinion?

[Vonny]

If you compare the different options considering the cost per new rider (assuming a base of current 50,000 rider, as on the 99B line). You will find out that most of them are in a relatively narrow range


(from ubc rapid transit act 2)

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by JoeBugliati

I [briefly] attended the first info session and I listened to the webinar.

I have always been a proponent of LRT, and initially thought it 'could' be a sustainable alternative for the broadway corridor.

However, after some thoughtful and careful lurking on this forum, despite the high and possibly prohibitive cost, I believe RRT is the correct solution, for many reasons that have recently been cited here.

If skytrain is extended only to Arbutus, and LRT continues to UBC, I believe the many opinions voiced here are correct, in that it would preclude Skytrain from ever extending to UBC in the future.

In addition, if LRT is implemented from Arbutus to UBC, I believe it will need additional stations, thus significantly reducing travel time. My reason for this is, I believe LRT should replace trolley service along the corridor, albeit at a slightly larger distance, ie 400-500m.

One thing I found interesting from the webinar is the response to a question regarding trolley service & LRT. Busby replied something along the line of, "if we implemented LRT, we would have to study the feasibility of trolley service and how it would be integrated.. [bad paraphrase]". I may be wrong but within the context of the conversation, it seemed possible that trolley service would co-exist with any possible LRT implementation, whether it be from Arbutus west or along the whole Broadway corridor. This, I disagree with.

I think in order for LRT to work on Broadway, people have to accept a more 'european' tram notion. LRT wouls replace both the #9 and #99, however it would have to achieve a happy medium between speed (#99) and accessibility (#9), thus adopting something close to 400-500m stops. LRT, in this format, would provide traffic calming (which in reality is traffic redistribution) to Broadway and would probably appease the likes of Prof Condon and Zwei, but from a rapid transit point of view, how much faster would that really be than what we have now? Not to mention how much more capacity could be achieved?

Taking this into account, what is the cost benefit analysis of LRT from VCC or Comercial to UBC? I believe in order for it to achieve it goals, LRT would have to replace the #9 and #99, reducing bus congestion, however, probably only slightly increasing the travel time and creating its own street congestion. Now for some people (Condon) this is a good and sustainable solution. However, we could be spending in upwards of 3-4 billion and only 'slightly' increasing travel times to UBC, adding an extra transfer, and prohibiting any further expansion (RRT) in the future.

My concern is, if we extend Skytrain only to Arbutus and LRT the rest of the way, from a cost stand point, RRT from VCC to UBC is not that much more, and it would allow the CoV, maybe with help from the province, down the road, to implement the street car initiative (which i am a huge proponent of).

In short, even though I think Skytrain technology is cost prohibitive, due to its proprietary technology, i think it is the best solution for the broadway corridor. Skytrain technology has been selected for 2/3 of the line (millennium and evergreen), it is logical to complete it with a seamless, interlined solution.

~joe

Great post, thanks for taking the time to share it. I agree with you. Part of me really likes the Combo 1 option with RRT to Arbutus and LRT from Main Street-Science World to UBC. That option would connect the Canada Line to the SkyTrain network outside of downtown and dramatically reshape travel times throughout the city. The LRT option would finally provide much of the streetcar system that the City has been working on for years, it would connect to Granville Island and frankly would be a lovely ride through Kits, Point Grey and the University Endowment Lands. I do really think that the public would be okay with this solution.

However combo 1 is only $500 million away from RRT all the way to UBC and travel times would not be dramatically different than the 99 B-Line on a good day. Plus the frequency of LRT will simply never achieve what we are used to with SkyTrain. In the webinar I asked the question about frequency and it was acknowledged that RRT would have superior frequency and that up to 75 second headways can be achieved with SkyTrain technology. The BRT option would max out at 90 second frequencies on paper, which is allegedly what the 99 B-Line is achieving now, but the BRT option would not take people out of cramped buses, nor would it appeal to a lot of choice commuters who do like SkyTrain. The LRT option would have frequencies as good as every five minutes with lower rates in off-peak hours. The whole beauty of automated SkyTrain is that you can maintain high frequencies throughout the day and appeal to the people who would rightly balk at having to wait 10+ minutes for "rapid transit" in off peak hours or late at night.

Originally Posted by Vonny

If you compare the different options considering the cost per new rider (assuming a base of current 50,000 rider, as on the 99B line).

The 99 B-Line does not have 50,000 passengers a day. The Broadway corridor has more than 115,000 passengers a day and you cannot tell me that the #9 carries more people than the 99.

[golog]

Originally Posted by Vonny

If you compare the different options considering the cost per new rider (assuming a base of current 50,000 rider, as on the 99B line). You will find out that most of them are in a relatively narrow range


(from ubc rapid transit act 2)

If service began tomorrow, ridership would be closer to 150,000 per day

50,000 per day would be something like the Evergreen or Surrey extensions after a few years

[CLC]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The 99 B-Line does not have 50,000 passengers a day. The Broadway corridor has more than 115,000 passengers a day and you cannot tell me that the #9 carries more people than the 99.

Be aware whenever Translink mentions Brodway corridor ridership, it includes much more bus routes than SSP people assume.

A fine print on a rather recent Translink document reveals that the corridor includes 4, 9, 17, 33, 44 84 & 99-b.

[nname]

Originally Posted by CLC

Be aware whenever Translink mentions Brodway corridor ridership, it includes much more bus routes than SSP people assume.

A fine print on a rather recent Translink document reveals that the corridor includes 4, 9, 17, 33, 44 84 & 99-b.

But a UBC would not only replace the 99, but will also replace or attract riders from the routes above. This is what I think will happen if the UBC line is built as SkyTrain:

4 - Remains as-is, loosing some riders to the UBC line but gain some from other route cancellations
9 - Extends to Blanca or UBC during off-peak, replacing the 17
17 - Discontinue the Broadway/10th segment
33 - Remains as-is, but loosing riders originated from the area between 16th and Broadway
44 - Replaced by Canada/UBC line and 84
84 - Frequency reduces and replace the 44 express on 4th
99 - Will be cancelled, this is for sure
480 - Replaced by Canada/UBC line

I'm the sure the same would happen or even being considered for a LRT/Combo service on Broadway, as it would either increase the trip time, insert 2 additional transfers (whereas the RRT would add only 1 at most), or increase the distance of the trip...

[JoeBugliati]

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Just out of curiosity, what were your personal reasons for supporting LRT, and what exactly were the different viewpoints that caused you to change your opinion?

I can't think of any specific thread or person that changed my mind, its just been a gradual viewpoint change.

I originally supported LRT along Broadway from a cost stand point. Its cheaper, and when its hard to come up with a couple hundred million for the Evergreen shortfall, you probably aren't gonna get your hands on 3-4 billion for a subway to UBC.

The main thing is I don't think Translink would implement LRT properly. Its too much of a paradigm shift for them. The planning for RRT is easy. Take the b-line and for the most part, put it underground. Done. But I don't think you can you can use that same template for LRT.

LRT on broadway needs to walk the fine line between accessibility (#9) and speed (#99). It needs more stops than the #99 but less than the #9. I don't think you can just use the existing 99 stops for LRT like you would for RRT.

For LRT to work on broadway it should replace both the 9 and the 99 (In actuality, LRT should remove all bus traffic on broadway), but they aren't planning for that. Translink hasn't specifically addressed what would happen to the 9 if LRT was implemented. They say they will have to study that more. But realistically, look at their proposed station spacing, they are far enough apart that it necessitates keeping the 9. I don't think you can run, nor should you run both trolleys and LRT, it doesn't make sense, plus there is just no room on broadway. Seriously, can you imagine driving down that one dedicated car lane, behind a couple trolleys, next to a LRT vehicle with people standing in the middle of the road?

If you build RRT, then you can run the 9 above. I believe the essence and strength of LRT is to bridge that gap between speed and accessibility that hopefully meets both needs. That being said, LRT needs more frequent 400-500m stops than currently proposed.

In addition, Broadway isn't the nicest street to take a stroll down, but LRT would provide traffic calming by removing buses and scaring away vehicles.. You'll have that nice grass LRT medium, sidewalk cafes will spring up everywhere, and if you're lucky, you may even spot Zwei, sitting street side, sipping on some tea and enjoying the pleasant 'ding ding' of the passing trams.

Now, I am being a little facetious, but I believe if done correctly, LRT will enhance and change the street as well as meeting capacity demands and provide a much better transit experience than what we currently have. I also think these things are worth spending 1-2 billion dollars on.

However, what LRT doesn't do is make the trip much faster than it already is. It may even, from time to time, be somewhat unreliable when some poor fellow rams his or her car into a tram. From reading the posts in this forum, I think most people would rather spend more money (if available) and have real rapid transit. I think the items i outlined are important, but i think speed and reliability, at least in this market, are more important. I think people are hesitant to spend 1-2 billion on LRT that doesn't provide much faster travel times and, if not done correctly, really screw up the street.

The last thing that clinched RRT for me is after changing Evergreen to Skytrain, it makes absolutely no sense in my mind to build LRT on Broadway. Why would you spend all that money on Skytrain for Evergreen when there is like 0 ridership (facetious again) and then build LRT on Broadway when you would have like 150,000 or so / day. If anything, Evergreen should be LRT and Broadway Skytrain. But I don't want to upset anybody that lives out there. The powers that be selected skytrain for Evergreen so just finish Broadway off properly and have one seamless, interlined connection.

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

joe

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by JoeBugliati

I can't think of any specific thread or person that changed my mind, its just been a gradual viewpoint change.

I originally supported LRT along Broadway from a cost stand point. Its cheaper, and when its hard to come up with a couple hundred million for the Evergreen shortfall, you probably aren't gonna get your hands on 3-4 billion for a subway to UBC.

The main thing is I don't think Translink would implement LRT properly. Its too much of a paradigm shift for them. The planning for RRT is easy. Take the b-line and for the most part, put it underground. Done. But I don't think you can you can use that same template for LRT.

LRT on broadway needs to walk the fine line between accessibility (#9) and speed (#99). It needs more stops than the #99 but less than the #9. I don't think you can just use the existing 99 stops for LRT like you would for RRT.

For LRT to work on broadway it should replace both the 9 and the 99 (In actuality, LRT should remove all bus traffic on broadway), but they aren't planning for that. Translink hasn't specifically addressed what would happen to the 9 if LRT was implemented. They say they will have to study that more. But realistically, look at their proposed station spacing, they are far enough apart that it necessitates keeping the 9. I don't think you can run, nor should you run both trolleys and LRT, it doesn't make sense, plus there is just no room on broadway. Seriously, can you imagine driving down that one dedicated car lane, behind a couple trolleys, next to a LRT vehicle with people standing in the middle of the road?

If you build RRT, then you can run the 9 above. I believe the essence and strength of LRT is to bridge that gap between speed and accessibility that hopefully meets both needs. That being said, LRT needs more frequent 400-500m stops than currently proposed.

In addition, Broadway isn't the nicest street to take a stroll down, but LRT would provide traffic calming by removing buses and scaring away vehicles.. You'll have that nice grass LRT medium, sidewalk cafes will spring up everywhere, and if you're lucky, you may even spot Zwei, sitting street side, sipping on some tea and enjoying the pleasant 'ding ding' of the passing trams.

Now, I am being a little facetious, but I believe if done correctly, LRT will enhance and change the street as well as meeting capacity demands and provide a much better transit experience than what we currently have. I also think these things are worth spending 1-2 billion dollars on.

However, what LRT doesn't do is make the trip much faster than it already is. It may even, from time to time, be somewhat unreliable when some poor fellow rams his or her car into a tram. From reading the posts in this forum, I think most people would rather spend more money (if available) and have real rapid transit. I think the items i outlined are important, but i think speed and reliability, at least in this market, are more important. I think people are hesitant to spend 1-2 billion on LRT that doesn't provide much faster travel times and, if not done correctly, really screw up the street.

The last thing that clinched RRT for me is after changing Evergreen to Skytrain, it makes absolutely no sense in my mind to build LRT on Broadway. Why would you spend all that money on Skytrain for Evergreen when there is like 0 ridership (facetious again) and then build LRT on Broadway when you would have like 150,000 or so / day. If anything, Evergreen should be LRT and Broadway Skytrain. But I don't want to upset anybody that lives out there. The powers that be selected skytrain for Evergreen so just finish Broadway off properly and have one seamless, interlined connection.

Anyway, sorry for the long post.

joe

Don't be sorry, generally the longer the post, the more insightful it is. Thanks for your time!

[splashflash]

The last thing that clinched RRT for me is after changing Evergreen to Skytrain, it makes absolutely no sense in my mind to build LRT on Broadway. Why would you spend all that money on Skytrain for Evergreen when there is like 0 ridership (facetious again) and then build LRT on Broadway when you would have like 150,000 or so / day. If anything, Evergreen should be LRT and Broadway Skytrain.

LRT on Evergreen would be the tail wagging the dog. LRT through Port Moody performs the worst among GLT, Skytrain, or light rail among the North-west and South-west (Lougheed highway and Port Coq to Coq) options reviewed several years ago. It is only marginally less costly than Skytrain.

Rubber tyred transit (double-articulated trolleybuses, Phileas or Translohr) would nix the need for a tunnel, and save half a billion dollars. I think an extended gandola should have also been examined - one that starts in Port Moody, up to SFU, and back down to Production Station.

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any money for any rail along Broadway, as things now stand. That is what bugged me about the seven options. None had the Millennium Line end at the Canada Line at City Hall. It would have been nice to know the capital cost.

BRT and the best bus option may be the way to go. I find it hard to believe LRT is seven minutes faster than a BRT.

Unless tolls are introduced in the Van Metro, and everybody gets something, don't expect Broadway plans to move forward in the next 10 years.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by nname

But a UBC would not only replace the 99, but will also replace or attract riders from the routes above. ...

You are certainly right, so eventually a cost per point of transit mode share gain in the corridor could be more appropriate. That is what the graph below gives:

(from ubc rapid transit act 2. Notice that the previous graph given on this forum has been updated with "business as usual" number from Translink instead to use the today 99B ridership).

[CLC]

Originally Posted by nname

But a UBC would not only replace the 99, but will also replace or attract riders from the routes above. This is what I think will happen if the UBC line is built as SkyTrain:

4 - Remains as-is, loosing some riders to the UBC line but gain some from other route cancellations
9 - Extends to Blanca or UBC during off-peak, replacing the 17
17 - Discontinue the Broadway/10th segment
33 - Remains as-is, but loosing riders originated from the area between 16th and Broadway
44 - Replaced by Canada/UBC line and 84
84 - Frequency reduces and replace the 44 express on 4th
99 - Will be cancelled, this is for sure
480 - Replaced by Canada/UBC line
...

Of course I do not oppose to what you said, like C-Line has stolen much of #3 passengers.
btw I read the Apr 1 Vancouver Sun article again and found a line stating 99-b current carries about 60000 (I think it is weekday).

[logan5]

All due respect, but we are contemplating spending 1.5 billion dollars to build a subway underneath West Point Grey and an elevated line through the Endowment Lands.

From low density to no density. UBC will never need Skytrain capacity.

As if our tax dollars grow on trees.

[splashflash]

All due respect, but we are contemplating spending 1.5 billion dollars to build a subway underneath West Point Grey and an elevated line through the Endowment Lands.

From low density to no density. UBC will never need Skytrain capacity.

As if our tax dollars grow on trees.

The usage west of Arbutus is spread out throughout the day, but the rail options would have capacity far above the peak hour ridership anywhere in the corridor, but especially west of Arbutus.

If one pieces together the scenarios, the Translink modelling shows that little ridership is gained by a direct link to UBC. Ridershipship scenarios (rides per day) with Millennium Line extensions:

RRT to UBC from Commercial is 146,000
RRT to Arbutus + LRT Main Stn to UBC 145,000
RRT to Arbutus + BRT BDWY Stn to UBC 138,000

Sure, there would be BRT redundancy in central Broadway, and the LRT would be just north of central Broadway, and both would get extra riders that way. The costs are hugely different though.

The university students are basically captive riders. Mode change does not affect ridership much. Ridership is far too low for Skytrain, but also for LRT. The peak ridership west of Arbutus is shown to be 1,500 pph, well within the BRT operating capacity (3000 pph).

It would have been nice to see other combos, for example RRT to Cambie + LRT or BRT to UBC. A BRT + best bus scenario would also have been useful.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by splashflash

The usage west of Arbutus is spread out throughout the day, but the rail options would have capacity far above the peak hour ridership anywhere in the corridor, but especially west of Arbutus.

If one pieces together the scenarios, the Translink modelling shows that little ridership is gained by a direct link to UBC. Ridershipship scenarios (rides per day) with Millennium Line extensions:

RRT to UBC from Commercial is 146,000
RRT to Arbutus + LRT Main Stn to UBC 145,000
RRT to Arbutus + BRT BDWY Stn to UBC 138,000

Sure, there would be BRT redundancy in central Broadway, and the LRT would be just north of central Broadway, and both would get extra riders that way. The costs are hugely different though.

The university students are basically captive riders. Mode change does not affect ridership much. Ridership is far too low for Skytrain, but also for LRT. The peak ridership west of Arbutus is shown to be 1,500 pph, well within the BRT operating capacity (3000 pph).

It would have been nice to see other combos, for example RRT to Cambie + LRT or BRT to UBC. A BRT + best bus scenario would also have been useful.

no ........

[golog]

Originally Posted by logan5

All due respect, but we are contemplating spending 1.5 billion dollars to build a subway underneath West Point Grey and an elevated line through the Endowment Lands.

From low density to no density. UBC will never need Skytrain capacity.

As if our tax dollars grow on trees.

It's easy to see you have no knowledge or perspective of anything relevant to what you said. You just want to snuggle up in a blanket of ignorance, please do so quietly

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by logan5

All due respect, but we are contemplating spending 1.5 billion dollars to build a subway underneath West Point Grey and an elevated line through the Endowment Lands.

From low density to no density. UBC will never need Skytrain capacity.

As if our tax dollars grow on trees.

What your not looking at is the employment density of UBC. Students are an employment density as well. So while UBC may not have a high residential density. There are a lot of people who go out to UBC every day for school and work. Sure during the summer the number of students drops since less are in school during that time.

Now does that mean we need to build skytrain all the way to UBC. While it would be nice it may not be needed. But a grade seperated system is needed to at least Arbutus.

The thing I noticed about the options with and LRT at grade. Is that parking will have to be removed along Broadway. I'm sure that would go over well with businesses in the area.

Building something that maybe cheaper does not mean it maybe better.