Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[nname]

Originally Posted by splashflash

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).

I guess the report assume a loss in ridership toward UBC as the students are fed up with the transit service and go back to their car? The current peak load on the 99 B-Line alone is already much higher than this.

This data is from the Fall 2010 Transportation Study Report, measuring the passengers coming into or out of UBC (AM peak measures 1 hour ridership westbound; PM peak measure 1 hour eastbound):

Route	 AM	 PM	Daily
=====	====	====	=====
  99	2010	1720	22690
  41	 590	 380	 6060
  25	 410	 930	 5190
  44	 610	 590	 4830
  84	 420	 340	 4710
 480	 360	 470	 4530
  17	 370	 300	 3580
  43	 480	 570	 3020
  49	 470	 390	 2620
  33	 290	 280	 2520
   4	 120	 230	 2360
   9	 120	 170	  910
 258	  70	  80	  270

   A	3400	3200	37030
   B	 610	 700	 6850
   C	1220	 690 	 7710
   D	1540	1340	11700

A: Express services: 44, 84, 99, 258, 480
B: Local Broadway/4th: 4, 9, 17
C: Local 16th: 25, 33
D: Local 41th/49th: 41, 43, 49

I've group the routes into 4 categories, A would most likely be replaced by any rapid transit service to UBC (especially for SkyTrain), so this would probably be the baseline. B and C are local services close to the corridor so would most likely loose some riders to the rapid transit. Group D would be less impacted by a UBC rapid transit, although the ridership on the 49 almost doubled from 2009 to 2010, maybe most of the gain are the transfers from Canada Line?

[CLC]

^ Well, is the above data reflect a typical 2010 Fall school day? The Translink Phase 2 report's estimate probably is average out a year (so at least 1/3 of calendar day when UBC has probably below 20000 in/out riders).

[nname]

I would assume the peak ridership per hour would be either AM or PM peak during peak season? Otherwise it would be stupid planning...

So lets assume the UBC portion would get 25% of the rider during summer.. this would average out to be 1510 pphpd... So.. to get the 1500 figure, there need to be little or no ridership between Arbutus and UBC, NO growth from now to 2021, NO ridership gain from other routes (not even 44 and 84), and it still have to loose 10 riders per hour for conversion to rapid transit...

And to add.. a ridership of 37030 would put the load on the segment between UBC and closest station above:

Expo Line: Gateway to King George
Millennium Line: Entire line
Canada Line: Bridgeport to YVR-Airport; Bridgeport to Richmond-Brighouse

With annual average of about 27700 (est.), then the segment would be above:

Expo Line: Surrey Central to King George
Millennium Line: Sperling to Production Way; Sapperton to Lougheed
Canada Line: Bridgeport to YVR-Airport; Aberdeen to Richmond-Brighouse

[splashflash]

Here is a messy copy of Figure 4. nname, you are correct that the modes themselves induce demand, especially for the Central portion. Interestingly, Translink does not place any premium on the LRT peak demand over the BRT peak demand, even though they both go from Arbutus to UBC. They have both at 1,500 people per hour per direction. That is why I made the conclusion I did.

I do applaud you on your looking back at the tables showing the other buses. Does that not show that a diffuse bus system could do more than we give it credit, especially between Arbutus and UBC?





Business Best Bus BRT LRT 1 LRT 2 RRT
as Usual Diesel/ Option A Option A Option A
Trolley / B / B / B
Ridership 59 75 75 A: 99 A: 107 A: 137
(1000s/day) B: 109 B: 116 B: 146

Peak Capacity 2,100 1,700 3,000 A: 3,200 A:2,800 A:3,900
B: 2,900 B: 3,400 B: 5,600

Theoretical 2,500 - 3,000 A: 14,400 A: 14,400 A: 25,600
Capacity B: 14,400 B: 14,400 B: 26,000
Mode Share 29.3% 29.9% 29.4% A: 29.7% A: 29.7% A: 30.2%
B: 29.9% B: 29.9% B: 31.3%



Combo 1 Combo 2
RRT, LRT RRT, BRT
Ridership
(1000s/day) 145 138


Peak Capacity LRT: 1,500 BRT: 1,500
RRT: 4,400 RRT: 4,400



Theoretical LRT: 14,400 BRT: 3,000
RRT: 26,000 RRT: 26,000


Capacity
Mode Share  30.8% 30.7%

[splashflash]

Even so, the 1,500 is far below the 3,000 theoretical capacity of BRT.


I could n't get the figures to align. See bottom for combos, from which I note the peak capacity (per direction per hour)

Business Best Bus BRT LRT 1 LRT 2 RRT
as Usual Diesel/ Option A Option A Option A
Trolley / B / B / B
Ridership 59 75 75 A: 99 A: 107 A: 137
(1000s/day) B: 109 B: 116 B: 146

Peak Capacity 2,100 1,700 3,000 A: 3,200 A:2,800 A:3,900
B: 2,900 B: 3,400 B: 5,600

Theoretical 2,500 - 3,000 A: 14,400 A: 14,400 A: 25,600
Capacity B: 14,400 B: 14,400 B: 26,000
Mode Share 29.3% 29.9% 29.4% A: 29.7% A: 29.7% A: 30.2%
B: 29.9% B: 29.9% B: 31.3%



Combo 1 Combo 2
RRT, LRT RRT, BRT
Ridership
(1000s/day) 145 138


Peak Capacity LRT: 1,500 BRT: 1,500
RRT: 4,400 RRT: 4,400



Theoretical LRT: 14,400 BRT: 3,000
RRT: 26,000 RRT: 26,000


Capacity
Mode Share  30.8% 30.7%

[logan5]

Originally Posted by golog

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

I'm not sure what facts you're referring to?

West Point Grey has population density of 2857/km² and a low transit usage of 17%, compared to 27.2 % for kits, which also has 2½ x the density. Skytrain would tunnel underneath this low density neighborhood(West Point Grey) for 2 km and then become an elevated line through the 0 population density University Endowment Lands for another 2 km.

The 99, 84, 17, 4, 44, and 9 add up to a peak morning rush hour of 3700 people. Skytrain won't gain ridership from routes south of Broadway, because it would be inconvenient to travel down Broadway then transfer on to a city bus to go south.

So the UBC extension is essentially a 1.5 billion dollar shuttle service for a peak 3700 pph. A number even a b-line can handle, let alone a BRT or LRT.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm not sure what facts you're referring to?

West Point Grey has population density of 2857/km² and a low transit usage of 17%, compared to 27.2 % for kits, which also has 2½ x the density. Skytrain would tunnel underneath this low density neighborhood(West Point Grey) for 2 km and then become an elevated line through the 0 population density University Endowment Lands for another 2 km.

The 99, 84, 17, 4, 44, and 9 add up to a peak morning rush hour of 3700 people. Skytrain won't gain ridership from routes south of Broadway, because it would be inconvenient to travel down Broadway then transfer on to a city bus to go south.

So the UBC extension is essentially a 1.5 billion dollar shuttle service for a peak 3700 pph. A number even a b-line can handle, let alone a BRT or LRT.

If the B-Line could handle it then there wouldn't be any over crowding along Broadway.

Notice how I said along Broadway and not to UBC. Those are two different issues. Is skytrain needed out to UBC probably not. Is it wanted to some degree yes. I do feel though that skytrain is built along Broadway. Since the equipment is being used and there. Why not just finish off the line to the end and be done with it. It would be cheaper than to one day in 50 years find out oh we should have done it back then when we had the chance.

But if it saves a bit of money. I'm not going to be upset if skytrain doesn't make it to UBC. However I do want some kind of grade seperated system at least to Arbutus.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I do want some kind of grade seperated system at least to Arbutus.

-- Agreed --

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

I'm not sure what facts you're referring to?

West Point Grey has population density of 2857/km² and a low transit usage of 17%, compared to 27.2 % for kits, which also has 2½ x the density. Skytrain would tunnel underneath this low density neighborhood(West Point Grey) for 2 km and then become an elevated line through the 0 population density University Endowment Lands for another 2 km.

If both end of the line are major destinations, I don't know why can't they build through the 2 km... Hong Kong MTR have a stretch of more than 10km in the middle of nowhere; BART runs pretty much in the middle of nowhere near the end of each line... and yet they still build it. This list can go on and on.

Originally Posted by logan5

The 99, 84, 17, 4, 44, and 9 add up to a peak morning rush hour of 3700 people. Skytrain won't gain ridership from routes south of Broadway, because it would be inconvenient to travel down Broadway then transfer on to a city bus to go south.

So the UBC extension is essentially a 1.5 billion dollar shuttle service for a peak 3700 pph. A number even a b-line can handle, let alone a BRT or LRT.

They how would you explain the ridership gain on the 49 from 2009 to 2010? The ridership on 49 in and out of UBC increased by 90% within a year.. are you telling me that everyone on the 49th Avenue want to take transit all of a sudden?

And you have no idea of how much people there is for 3700 pphpd. An articulated bus can hold about 90 people max (although the capacity is around 115, but I rarely see a bus take more than 90 before it start passing up). This would require at least 42 buses per hour to take the load, which is much more than the pracital limit a B-Line and BRT can handle. Even this is stated in the report.

To visualize what 3700 pphpd looks like, just take the Millennium Line from Renfew to Lougheed, or the Expo Line from Scott Road to Surrey Central during peak hours... They are all in the 3000s pphpd range.

With growth in the next 10 years, plus ridership gain from the rapid transit system, I'm sure the line would get 5300 pphpd very easily... and this would match the busiest segment on the Canada Line today...

[CLC]

Originally Posted by nname

Hong Kong MTR have a stretch of more than 10km in the middle of nowhere;

Don't think it is good example. The West Rail is losing huge money. So does Airport express.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by nname

And you have no idea of how much people there is for 3700 pphpd. An articulated bus can hold about 90 people max (although the capacity is around 115, but I rarely see a bus take more than 90 before it start passing up). This would require at least 42 buses per hour to take the load, which is much more than the pracital limit a B-Line and BRT can handle. Even this is stated in the report.

To visualize what 3700 pphpd looks like, just take the Millennium Line from Renfew to Lougheed, or the Expo Line from Scott Road to Surrey Central during peak hours... They are all in the 3000s pphpd range.

I think a better visualization is to look at the b-line today. It takes 2100 pph am peak to UBC. I'm guessing here, but I would think it takes about the same peak number to central Broadway.

Anyway, my point was that a ridership number of 3700 pph peak does not justify a 1.5 billion dollar shuttle service.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

I think a better visualization is to look at the b-line today. It takes 2100 pph am peak to UBC. I'm guessing here, but I would think it takes about the same peak number to central Broadway.

Anyway, my point was that a ridership number of 3700 pph peak does not justify a 1.5 billion dollar shuttle service.

Peak in Central Broadway would be higher, but not as high as 3700... The report indicate that 2500-3000 is the limit for B-Line and BRT, so I guess this is what's the load right now.

Its not like no one would get on or off at Macdonald, Alma, and West Point Grey... Sorry to bring up another stat, but according to 2007 APC count comparing EB 99 with NB 98:
- The boarding of Macdonald stop is higher than all stops on the 98 B-Line exclude Broadway, Airport Station, and Richmond Centre.
- The boarding of Alma stop is higher than the above stops minus Aberdeen and Marpole.
- The boarding of Sasmat stop is higher than the above stops minus 41st Ave.
- Lansdowne, 49th Avenue, King Edward, and 5th Avenue are all smaller stops than these 3 stops

Base on your logic, then sadly, the Canada Line, Evergreen Line, Millennium Line, and even the Expo Line are not justified as the ridership on the routes they replaced are all much much lower than 3700 pphpd.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by nname

Its not like no one would get on or off at Macdonald, Alma, and West Point Grey...

Base on your logic, then sadly, the Canada Line, Evergreen Line, Millennium Line, and even the Expo Line are not justified as the ridership on the routes they replaced are all much much lower than 3700 pphpd.

All the lines you mentioned above are suburban services with hundreds of bus routes feeding into them. An extension to UBC will not have this opportunity as it would run through low density (West Point Grey) to no density (University Endowment Lands).So I think it's fair to categorize this as a shuttle service much like Canada Line YVR. Except the YVR branch cost 500 million and was paid for by the Airport Authority, while the UBC extension will cost 1.5 billion dollars and be paid for by tax dollars.

[nname]

Originally Posted by logan5

All the lines you mentioned above are suburban services with hundreds of bus routes feeding into them. An extension to UBC will not have this opportunity as it would run through low density (West Point Grey) to no density (University Endowment Lands).So I think it's fair to categorize this as a shuttle service much like Canada Line YVR. Except the YVR branch cost 500 million and was paid for by the Airport Authority, while the UBC extension will cost 1.5 billion dollars and be paid for by tax dollars.

UBC is not a large destination itself? Based on the 2006 boarding stat, the boarding of express routes in UBC (37030 / 2 = 18515) is pretty comparable to those suburban stations with hundreds of routes feeding to it. In fact, even without gain from rapid transit conversion, it would put it above all stations west of Broadway except Joyce, Metrotown, Surrey Central, and Lougheed. Would you call the Expo Line a shuttle train between Downtown, Joyce, Metrotown, and Surrey.. and the Millennium Line a shuttle train to Lougheed?

[SpongeG]

did anyone see vancouver's vision for kingsway with a streetcar? they showed a rendering in a 125th birthday video... they basically want to eliminate cars from kingsway and make it streetcar bicycle and pedestrians

so i think they envision the same happenning for broadway - give the street over to bicycles and streetcar...

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by logan5

All the lines you mentioned above are suburban services with hundreds of bus routes feeding into them. An extension to UBC will not have this opportunity as it would run through low density (West Point Grey) to no density (University Endowment Lands).So I think it's fair to categorize this as a shuttle service much like Canada Line YVR. Except the YVR branch cost 500 million and was paid for by the Airport Authority, while the UBC extension will cost 1.5 billion dollars and be paid for by tax dollars.

Please stop trying to justify yourself, it's getting tiring. Buses feeding into stations is not a compelling case of high ridership. Even if it is, you should be aware that there are multiple bus routes along Broadway aside from the 99.

Oh and the Skybridge over the fraser connecting New West and Surrey should have never been built right? It goes through "no density".

[Millennium2002]

... or maybe even the whole Millennium Line at its conception... which was actually more of a political project than an actual needs-based one I think. (shrug)

Has it been discussed already that there may be induced demand coming from the other routes because people see SkyTrain as being faster than the B-Line setup that exists right now?

In addition almost any form of BRT in combo with RRT or extra bus service along the route will result in higher than normal operating costs per year, and any form of BRT and LRT will disrupt Broadway's critical artery function to the point that it'll be like Cambie Street during construction... but permanently for the next 40 years. =S Even the pedestrian improvements may not help as much as one would think.

[Alex Mackinnon]

A lot of people seem to really be tearing apart Point Grey's density. When it comes down to it it's not all that low. Many 50' lots are being bought up and subdivided into 33' lots. Also, since housing costs are so high a large portion of houses have basement suites, usually rented out to students.

Also depending on what the Musqueam FN decides to build a pretty hefty population could be build on the UBC Golf Course lands.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by logan5

All the lines you mentioned above are suburban services with hundreds of bus routes feeding into them. An extension to UBC will not have this opportunity as it would run through low density (West Point Grey) to no density (University Endowment Lands).So I think it's fair to categorize this as a shuttle service much like Canada Line YVR. Except the YVR branch cost 500 million and was paid for by the Airport Authority, while the UBC extension will cost 1.5 billion dollars and be paid for by tax dollars.

Do you realize how many people are going to be living in West Post Grey in the next 20 years? They are building a new high school there for a reason. This is a high-growth area, which will probably exceed the population of Port Moody for the rest of your life. Times have changed at UBC since the 90's. It is time that you think of it as a regional centre.

As for YVR paying for its branch, UBC can also afford this without dipping into tax dollars. UBC has a huge land endowment, which has paid for many things in the past, and this is an ideal place to invest some of that endowment. The UEL can easily pay for several kilometers of SkyTrain line.

[DKaz]

UBC? Point Grey? Low density? Haha. Haha.