Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[itinerant]

Originally Posted by nname

20 minutes interval? The last time I checked, during weekdays, the 99 is running at least every 5min from 6am-6pm and at least every 12min (going to be every 10min this April) till at least midnight.

As you've noted, the 99 isn't the only bus to UBC. All routes would be affected by a high-capacity line down Broadway. It would draw off bus routes from all destinations that go to UBC... including 4, 44, 10, ... The 20min intervals of which I speak are those from downtown, and going other way from UBC.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Zassk

My comment was dismissed two pages ago, but I think it would be a terrible mistake for this line to be routed away from the hospital and Broadway&Granville areas. This transit investment is really about servicing two very important regional hubs - UBC and Central Broadway. Any plans that leaves either of them served by Broadway buses is a huge waste of investment. IMO it is important to hit the hospital district, more important than Granville Island by far.

None of the proposals omit Central Broadway.
The all LRT and all BRT options may underserve Central Broadway, but it still runs on Broadway.
The RRT and both of the Combo options have RRT on Central Broadway.

[dleung]

Combo 2 seems like a better deal than Combo 1, which is only 15% cheaper than full RRT. I have serious doubts that a quaint streetcar tour of the Olympic village and Granville Island will be a realistic option for most students. I prefer LRT over RRT for the Westside, but I think saving $1.2 billion and allowing the possibility of future RRT capacity to UBC outweighs that.

[crazyjoeda]

Although SkyTrain all the way to UBC would be fantastic, I've always preferred combo 1.

What I like about combo 1 is that it provides SkyTrain to the portion of Broadway with the most employment centres. With the exception of UBC there are few regional important destinations west of Arbutus.

The second light-rail line serves important destination such as the Olympic village and Granville Island. Combo 2 still provides efficient transit to UBC just at a slightly slower speed. However, I argue that most students will still gladly take an LRT to UBC for free than put up with the hassles and costs of driving and parking.

[huenthar]

Honestly, for Combo 2 I'd rather they just scrapped the BRT altogether (ie build 'phase 1' of the RRT option). The BRT over the B-line west of Arbutus isn't worth the money. Save the $ for Phase 2 or put it to other uses.

[Echowinds]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Although SkyTrain all the way to UBC would be fantastic, I've always preferred combo 1.

What I like about combo 1 is that it provides SkyTrain to the portion of Broadway with the most employment centres. With the exception of UBC there are few regional important destinations west of Arbutus.

The second light-rail line serves important destination such as the Olympic village and Granville Island. Combo 2 still provides efficient transit to UBC just at a slightly slower speed. However, I argue that most students will still gladly take an LRT to UBC for free than put up with the hassles and costs of driving and parking.

The problem is that it is not slightly slower, but rather significantly slower than RRT. There's absolutely no benefit speed wise for students coming from the M line or people coming from the North Shore or Richmond/South Van, where existing bus services is nearly just as fast as the LRT option. You might as well axe the entirety of the line west of arbutus in combo 1 to save a bunch of money, rather than build a LRT line that doesn't really help anyone. Might as well use that money to complete the DT streetcar network.

The thing about building RRT all the way to UBC is that you can eliminate lines such as 44 and 480 as well as alleviating the various local bus lines that reaches UBC because RRT pretty much renders regional bus routes to UBC obsolete.

[nname]

Originally Posted by huenthar

Honestly, for Combo 2 I'd rather they just scrapped the BRT altogether (ie build 'phase 1' of the RRT option). The BRT over the B-line west of Arbutus isn't worth the money. Save the $ for Phase 2 or put it to other uses.

That would be just the same as the RRT option.



Not all of the option are intended to be built all at once. The current stage of the consultation (phase 2) just to evaluate the alternatives. This consultation (and also the Surrey one) ask for the preferred alternative for the end product, after all the phases are completed, and its something that's going to be used long into the future. Once the preferred alternative is established, they will they start to create a phasing plan. The consultation is NOT used to decide what to be build as phase 1.

Quote from the consultation website:

Phase 3: To be determined

Once a preferred alternative has been identified, Phase 3 will begin. In this phase, the preferred alternative will be designed in detail, and potential phasing and a timeline for implementation will be created. You'll have opportunities for input during this phase!

So, I don't really get why there's even an argument saying that RRT is definitely needed but it is too expensive so we should pick the second-best alternative and save a few hundred millions to be used for potential phase 2 upgrade.... There's no more phases after what's being shown on the map!

[NucksFanInVan]

If we had RRT all the way to UBC, I suspect we'd see another surge in ridership, and I think the surge would not depend on the UPass...

Once RRT (and faregates) are in at UBC, I think the Greater Vancouver RT network will be its own incentive and we could consider scrapping the U-Pass at UBC to make more money to service the debt.

Do you agree? Or do you think that this would result in a net decrease in revenue?

[trofirhen]

Just an opinion, but I think NOT going rrt all the way is "penny wise and pound foolish." It's the most expensive option, yes, but also the best.

And as nname said, it will need (expensive sic) upgrading in the future, which will require money which may not be available. Bite the bullet and make it an all-rrt system from the outset.

Again, just an opinion. The more financially-schooled forum members might explain why it would be better to do it otherwise.

[David]

I'm glad I joined the Translink Listens survey. Of course I put all my chips in for RRT, but I would not be disappointed at all if Combo-1 were built instead. The idea of an LRT using the existing rail ROWs, and having a rapid transit connection to all the destinations along that route, is very intriguing.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by David

I'm glad I joined the Translink Listens survey. Of course I put all my chips in for RRT, but I would not be disappointed at all if Combo-1 were built instead. The idea of an LRT using the existing rail ROWs, and having a rapid transit connection to all the destinations along that route, is very intriguing.

But there is nothing rapid about the LRT in that proposal.

[dleung]

Subway to at least Arbutus really should be done BEFORE the evergreen line, based on need. This really puts things in perspective:

Existing Lines --------------------------------------------- Cost ------------ Cost/km ---------------------- Annual Ridership

2009 - Canada Line (Vancouver) --------------------- $2.0 billion ----- $108 million/km ------------ 38 million (current)
2002 - Millenium Line (Vancouver) ------------------- $1.1 billion ----- $54 million/km -------------- 27 million (current)
Existing - 99B bus route (Vancouver) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 million (current)
2002 - Sheppard Subway (Toronto) ----------------- $1.0 billion ----- $146 million/km ------------ 14 million (current)


New, Proposed or U/C ---------------------------------- Cost ------------ Cost/km ---------------------- Contribution to Annual Ridership

Construction - Spadina Extension (Toronto) ------- $2.7 billion ----- $302 million/km ------------- 24 million (2018)
Proposed - Sheppard Extension (Toronto) --------- $3.25 billion --- $406 million/km ------------- 12.2 million (2031)
Proposed - LRT option (Toronto) ---------------------- $1 billion ------------------------------------------ 7.7 million (2031)
Proposed - UBC Extension (Vancouver) -------------- $3.2 billion ---- $267 million/km ------------- 60 million (2041)
Proposed - LRT option (Vancouver) ------------------- $1.1 billion ---------------------------------------- 9 million (2041)

[Metro-One]

oh god, not this again, yes, you are right about that, and I think no one will deny that, but unfortunately politics get in the way and to not do the Evergreen Line now because of this would be a huge mistake / missed opportunity.

Given the stage the UBC corridor is at given planning / design, the Evergreen Line will be finishing up by the time this line is even near ready to begin construction.

Again, the Tri-cities have fought very hard over the last 20 years to get their rapid transit, while areas along the Broadway corridor have fought very hard to prevent mass transit near them, so IMO good on the Tri-Cities for having true vision, and they get what they deserve.

Of course, when the E-Line is done and the M line extension along Broadway is ready to go, they "creme de la creme" along the Broadway west corridor are simply going to have to eat it, end of story.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by dleung

Subway to at least Arbutus really should be done BEFORE the evergreen line, based on need.

Nuts to that! You are talking about merely enhancing in terms of travel time an already well served corridor that wouldn't grow as much due to many factors such as extremely expensive real estate as well as resistant by the Westside Creme de la Creme vs an area that have virtually non-existent transit service and is poised to absorb much of the population growth of the region due to the relatively affordable housing, plus a line fully supported by its residents and the politicians at both sides of the spectrum (hopefully).

Frankly, I am sick and tired of this "us vs them", Vancouver must take all while the sole purpose of the burbs is to fund projects solely for Vancouver. That is bullshit and this attitude has to stop. The Evergreen Line is still not a sure thing at this point, and it boggles the mind why ANYONE would want it killed after DECADES of waiting. Sheesh! We need less Rob Ford like people here!

[WarrenC12]

Some great numbers dleung. I think what that shows us is Metro Vancouver is extremely transit friendly when it comes to using the system. The current lines and future UBC line proposal are all great bang for the buck when compared with Toronto as an example.

To me this shows that the funding model is completely broken... (not news, I know).

[Echowinds]

Ideally it would have been UBC to tri-cities right off the bat as with the original plans. While I agree that the Coquitlam area needs rapid transit, from a ridership and complete regional need it does make more sense to build the Broadway line first. People from other cities would more likely head to Broadway than the tri-cities.

I personally don't mind evergreen is being built first though.

As for Toronto, I still have no idea why they reject ALRT technologies when it makes so much sense on some of their corridors. Much more affordable with performance competitive with a full subway. Is there a particular reason why they reject the Scarborough RT (and why do they use drivers?).

[Vestry]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

We need less Rob Ford like people here!

In terms of a business case, I would go UBC first before Evergreen. But if we want to send a political signal that sound zoning/planning practices are to be rewarded, then Evergreen first.

Rob Ford analogy is a bit off. Toronto has a serious private car congestion problem that makes Highway 1 and the Port Mann look like a picnic. His proposed solution of putting a subway on Shepherd is like extending the Skytrain from King George out to Strawberry Hill, North Delta.

Originally Posted by Echowinds

As for Toronto, I still have no idea why they reject ALRT technologies when it makes so much sense on some of their corridors. Much more affordable with performance competitive with a full subway. Is there a particular reason why they reject the Scarborough RT (and why do they use drivers?).

Political inertia? Same reason some Vancouverites were surprised at the bidding criteria for the Canada Line.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by nname

That would be just the same as the RRT option.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Combo 2 offers nothing of worth over the full RRT option, given the phasing potential.



A big problem with Combo 1 is that the demand on the LRT would be completely different east vs west of Arbutus. All the through passengers will get off and take the RRT leg going West, leaving mostly local traffic on the LRT... It's like taking the 99 B-line west of Arbutus and marrying it with the 80 making one combined route - they're totally mismatched. That a big no-no for planning efficient service utilization; look what they did with the new #14 combining mismatched legs of the 10 and 17. They'd have to short-turn trains at Arbutus and send them back to UBC to make it work...

[racc]

Come on. A lot of money, probably over $100 million, has already been spent on designing, planning and starting to build the Evergreen Line. Much of that would be lost if it was delayed until after the Evergreen Line. It is ready to go. The UBC Line still requires 2 or 3 years of planning, design and public consultation before it could start. The Evergreen Line will almost be finished by then.

Yes, the UBC Line is very important to the region but there would be nothing to be gained by delaying the Evergreen Line until after the UBC Line.

[Zassk]

The only reason to build Evergreen now is because the Feds put stimulus money into it, and we would lose that if we changed plans. Otherwise there is no good reason to build it first.