Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 230

squeezied · #**4581** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 3:03 AM**

yup, skytrain all the way to ubc is a real contender now as opposed to 10 years ago

djh · #**4582** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 4:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeezied

yup, skytrain all the way to ubc is a real contender now as opposed to 10 years ago

Why? The financial picture is more grim now than it was 10 years ago when that study was done, and even back then the analysts ruled it out due to financial limitations. So I'm interested in why you think it's more likely now than it was then.

logan5 · #**4583** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 5:32 AM**

There was a story in the Vancouver Sun a while back (6 months ago?) telling of plans for UBC to add 50 000 residents. A UBC line would run underground through a golf course, so lets redevelop the golf course and build out from there. There's 3 or 4 other golf courses along S.W. Marine Dr., so it's a reasonable sacrifice.

bardak · #**4584** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 6:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djh

Why? The financial picture is more grim now than it was 10 years ago when that study was done, and even back then the analysts ruled it out due to financial limitations. So I'm interested in why you think it's more likely now than it was then.

Simply put the ridership is there and will it is only going to get higher with or without the skytrain. As it stands there are 3 limited stop buses along the Broadway corridor that balance the load decently right now. The 44 for North Shore and downtown, the 84 for the millennium line, and the 99 for the expo line. All of these routes are very well used end to end and the load is only going to get worse when/if the evergreen line is finished.

Robert in Calgary · #**4585** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djh

Why? The financial picture is more grim now than it was 10 years ago when that study was done, and even back then the analysts ruled it out due to financial limitations. So I'm interested in why you think it's more likely now than it was then.

The grimness of the financial picture is due purely to lack of political leadership.

One or two big decisions and it moves forward.

I agree that the ridership case is there. Slam dunk.

officedweller · #**4586** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by racc

It was not cost. It was very early in the process. One concern was security at lightly used entrances but there are many solutions to that.

i.e the closed entrance to Stadium Station (across Beatty) in front of the AMEC Building.

Another factor could be keeping pedestrian traffic on street level rather than underground - The City of Vancouver does not like undrground connections (i.e. malls) generally.

DKaz · #**4587** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 8:44 PM**

The Millennium Line started construction arguably when the economy here wasn't that great, as a result we got a great price. These jobs need to go out for tender the next couple of years while construction companies are still hurting for work.

jsbertram · #**4588** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

There was a story in the Vancouver Sun a while back (6 months ago?) telling of plans for UBC to add 50 000 residents. A UBC line would run underground through a golf course, so lets redevelop the golf course and build out from there. There's 3 or 4 other golf courses along S.W. Marine Dr., so it's a reasonable sacrifice.

The UBC golf course land has been (or will be) handed over to the Musqueam as part of their land claims settlement which I'm told also includes portions of Pacific Spirit Park and portions of the University Endowment Lands, but not any of the land that UBC itself is sitting on. There is a long-term lease of the land for the UBC golf course which I believe expires around 2030. If the Musqueam do get the land, they are promising to honour the lease agreements so the golf course can stay for the remainder of the lease, but are not likely to renew the lease when it expires. After the lease expires, the Musqueam may take over operation of the golf course or begin the redevelopment of the land for other uses.

Right now the City of Vancouver can't tell UBC what & where & how to build on their lands, but UBC wants to have a 'be a good neighbour' policy, so their University Town projects won't be radically different from what you would see in a typical redevelopment in Vancouver. More than likely the Musqueam will follow that example, since the location of the golf course land means all the water, power, gas, sewer and other infrastructure needed for the land redevelopment has to pass though Vancouver property and GVRD property.

With 50,000 more people living there and 50-75,000 travelling there daily for classes when the University Town projects are finished - plus whatever is built on the redeveloped golf course lands, the SkyTrain to UBC will be needed sooner than we expected a dozen years ago when the "Beyond the B-Line" was written.

wrenegade · #**4589** Posted **Sep 21, 2011, 10:35 PM**

The golf course is not necessarily dead. Most likely dead, but not 100%. Shaughnessy is trying to negotiate with Musqueam to give back their property early in exchange for freehold title to the UBC golf course. It's probably a long shot, but as a golfer, I'd like to see it happen.

Housing or golf course though it doesn't really matter, the ridership is there today.

nname · #**4590** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 7:16 PM**

The latest version of the seven alternatives being considered:

RRT LRT1 LRT2 Combo1 Combo2 BRT BestBus

The latest projection for RRT is 322,000 weekday riders by 2041... hmm....

trofirhen · #**4591** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

The latest version of the seven alternatives being considered:

RRT LRT1 LRT2 Combo1 Combo2 BRT BestBus

The latest projection for RRT is 322,000 weekday riders by 2041... hmm....

Oh please .... can't we just have RRT?

itinerant · #**4592** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 8:30 PM**

RRT or Combo 1 both look quite good. Can we get both? I wonder if the LRT segment from Arbutus to Main Street Station could be built as an independent project?

Metro-One · #**4593** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 8:32 PM**

I agree, RRT is my first choice, but if a compromise must be made combo 1 is nice as well. Cobo 2 is not very good since it duplicates too much service.

nname · #**4594** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I agree, RRT is my first choice, but if a compromise must be made combo 1 is nice as well. Cobo 2 is not very good since it duplicates too much service.

Actually, I prefer Combo 2 more than 1, just because it can be easily converted to RRT once the demand warrants (although I think the demand already warrants RRT service there). Though I would prefer the BRT component start from Arbutus or Cambie.

Think of this, Combo 1 duplicates much service too as there are 2 lines literally 400 meters apart. Besides Granville Island, the LRT line doesn't really bring new service to any other area. Even for Granville Island, they can easily create a new shuttle that bring people from the nearest SkyTrain station to within the island itself, like that route #51 used to do.

djh · #**4595** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

The latest version of the seven alternatives being considered:

RRT LRT1 LRT2 Combo1 Combo2 BRT BestBus

The latest projection for RRT is 322,000 weekday riders by 2041... hmm....

What was the RRT projection previously? Is this number higher or lower, so does it give the RRT argument more or less conviction?

Vestry · #**4596** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

The latest version of the seven alternatives being considered:

RRT LRT1 LRT2 Combo1 Combo2 BRT BestBus

The latest projection for RRT is 322,000 weekday riders by 2041... hmm....

Right now the B-Line gets 225,000 Mon-Fri. RRT will connect to all the existing lines, plus 30 years of 1-2% ridership growth....that's not unreasonable.

nname · #**4597** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by djh

What was the RRT projection previously? Is this number higher or lower, so does it give the RRT argument more or less conviction?

146,000 by 2021

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vestry

Right now the B-Line gets 225,000 Mon-Fri. RRT will connect to all the existing lines, plus 30 years of 1-2% ridership growth....that's not unreasonable.

The entire corridor currently have about 120,000. The B-Line right now have around 50,000.

Metro-One · #**4598** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

Actually, I prefer Combo 2 more than 1, just because it can be easily converted to RRT once the demand warrants (although I think the demand already warrants RRT service there). Though I would prefer the BRT component start from Arbutus or Cambie.

Think of this, Combo 1 duplicates much service too as there are 2 lines literally 400 meters apart. Besides Granville Island, the LRT line doesn't really bring new service to any other area. Even for Granville Island, they can easily create a new shuttle that bring people from the nearest SkyTrain station to within the island itself, like that route #51 used to do.

Again, I feel the opposite, as option 1 the LRT follows along Vancouver's street car plan. The LRT stretch west of Arbutus could be upgraded to RRT eventually, and the remaining LRT/streetcar stretch can then be made to coninue down Arbutus as a North / South corridor.

Zassk · #**4599** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:34 PM**

Combo 1 completely misses the section of Central Broadway that is in greatest need of rapid transit!

Metro-One · #**4600** Posted **Mar 21, 2012, 9:37 PM**

why? All of the UBC / Canada line / people heading west of city hall traffic would simply transfer onto the M line at commercial broadway, freeing up all that bus space for the local buses that would serve the few blocks.