Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[SpongeG]

i timed it on my watch - maybe it was a saturday - but i sent 13 minutes waiting on the platform and i never saw one leave when i was transferring, one evening last month or so ago - the people beside me were getting annoyed - they seemed to be car drivers who used the train to go to the soccer game or something cause they didn't seem impressed with the long wait time

[nname]

Well, that might just due to a delay. For a train every 8 minutes, if you take out one train, then there is a 16 minutes gap. Usually they will insert a train that is parked near VCC, Holdom, or Lougheed to fill the gap, but that train might not available during some times, such as peak hours or game/event services.

I remember one day last month, there was a westbound train that broke down at Lougheed just after the end of morning peak. While they move it out of the way, it also delayed the next train by 6 minutes and bunch it together with a third train. As a result, it created a 6+6+6=18 minutes gap between trains followed by two trains that run closely together. The parked train at Holdom was used to fill the gap (one benefit of automation!), and I expect they'll use the other train parked at VCC to restore the 6min headway eastbound while taking one of the bunching train out of service and park it at VCC tail track. The spare train at Holdom would probably be replaced by a new train out of OMC. While this delay was restored quickly and would not be even noticeable when the train turned around going back east, those who waited westbound at Production, Lake City, and Sperling would face a horrible wait time of up to 18 minutes and those west of Holdom would probably have to wait closer to 10 minutes.

[twoNeurons]

Let that be a lesson for you SpongeG... never challenge nname's numbers. He's the statistics king on these boards. :-)

cornholio, of course there will be many who stick to the WCE, but all I'm saying that comfort isn't everything.

EG trains will be a lot more convenient and from Port Moody, you likely have a better chance at a seat. If you're not on salary or you're on a strict schedule, you may be able to leave home later by taking the EG line, which essentially shortens your commute.

Many aren't able to work enroute.

There are obviously more options to stop on the EG line, but I'd imagine that anyone who works downtown will likely do any errands they need to do there over stopping at Commercial, Lougheed or Brentwood Mall.

The walk from Commercial to Broadway is nowhere NEAR 5 minutes and in many cases you don't really wait for the train when doing the transfer to Expo.

I will agree that faregates will do little to stop determined fare evaders. It WILL force people to buy the correct number of zones on their tickets, which sucks if you're only travelling 1 or 2 stops.

Check out the disparity in these images:
Joyce Skytrain to Broadway Corridor


Joyce to Metrotown


Joyce to Ikea


While it's true that faregates won't technically cost more, I'm sure there are more than a few people who ride the train that one extra stop without paying the additional zone because of the unfairness. (no pun intended)

This is particularly evident when travelling Rupert to Gilmore, Joyce to Patterson.

I would like to see a more graduated distance based system. I'm not entirely sure what it should look like, but I do think that faregates will allow for a more fair system overall... although it may add some complexity.

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by nname

They should, since its going to be all 2-car trains when Evergreen opens, so it should be theoretically twice as frequent to keep the same capacity

Ugh, really? I had hoped that the era of the 2car MK-II ended with the 48 "300 series" cars. Sure, every 3 minutes beats every 5-6, but human nature being what it is, people at Commercial/Broadway E/B in the PM rush will stuff those 2 car MK-II trains to capacity, and beyond. (And by 2016, more towers will be completed at Brentwood, Morrey Nissan site is now being cleared.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Dave2

Ugh, really? I had hoped that the era of the 2car MK-II ended with the 48 "300 series" cars. Sure, every 3 minutes beats every 5-6, but human nature being what it is, people at Commercial/Broadway E/B in the PM rush will stuff those 2 car MK-II trains to capacity, and beyond. (And by 2016, more towers will be completed at Brentwood, Morrey Nissan site is now being cleared.

Trains that come more often will allow the platform at Commercial to be cleared twice as often. You'll have fewer people waiting for the train and more people willing to wait for the next train Assuming it's full. With 6 minute frequencies, people will be more likely to force themselves onto the train, as they don't want to wait.

In addition, since Commercial is essentially a terminus station, you're loading a lot of passengers at the same time. More frequent, shorter trains mean the station will be less crowded.

Translink has the choice to either double train length or increase frequency on the M-Line.

I choose frequency.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Translink has the choice to either double train length or increase frequency on the M-Line.

I choose frequency.

Right on. The beauty of an automated system is that you can increase frequency for virtually zero cost. There's no difference in capacity running two-car trains every three minutes vs. four-car trains every six minutes, but as you say the stations will be less crowded and the total trip time for the average traveler will be 3 minutes shorter.

There really isn't any good reason to run longer trains at less frequent intervals. You only need to go to longer trains when you're approaching minimum frequencies.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Right on. The beauty of an automated system is that you can increase frequency for virtually zero cost. There's no difference in capacity running two-car trains every three minutes vs. four-car trains every six minutes, but as you say the stations will be less crowded and the total trip time for the average traveler will be 3 minutes shorter.

There really isn't any good reason to run longer trains at less frequent intervals. You only need to go to longer trains when you're approaching minimum frequencies.

I agree also. If the ridership is higher than expected they can always throw a few longer trains into service that day, or reassign them from the Expo Line, another beauty of driverless trains.

[officedweller]

Re-Allignment of the proposed M-Line extension through the GNW Campus to allow for an office building.
This shifts the station location towards Thornton & Great Northern Way.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120418/documents/ptec1.pdf

[jlousa]

Saw that this morning, really looks like the COV is set on RRT, at least for part of the route.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Saw that this morning, really looks like the COV is set on RRT, at least for part of the route.

It also appears that COV planners want to put the RRT alignment under Brunswick St which ends at Broadway, which implies that the UBC line will be running under Broadway westwards from this intersection.

If they were to 'jog' the line east a block over to Prince Edward St - running under Guelph Park - then the line could run past Broadway for a block and skirt the eastern edge of Kingsgate Mall to turn west into a 10th Avenue alignment

Once the tunnels are on the 10th Ave alignment, its a 'straight shot' to UBC, and any construction causing road closures would have a minimal impact on Broadway itself. They might be boring tunnels to UBC (pun intended), but a 'straight shot' alignment == easier to build == cheaper construction costs.

[nname]

I don't think it matters. No matter which road they choose, the TBM will have to bore the tunnel under properties as the 90 degree sharp turn (or 80 degree for some streets) would be too much for any type of rail transit.

[twoNeurons]

The two alternatives, as far as I can see:

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The two alternatives, as far as I can see:

A good picture can save a thousand words.

The Prince Edward (Red) routing only has to run under the east parking lot, but the Brunswick (Green) routing has to go under the mall buildings. (don't be tricked by the roof-top parking for the Buy-Low Foods customers)

Unless Kingsgate Mall is going to be redeveloped at the same time that the Skytrain tunnels are being built under it, I think they would prefer the Prince Edward alignment to get to 10th Ave, since that alignment avoids the mall buildings.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Saw that this morning, really looks like the COV is set on RRT, at least for part of the route.

Excellent! Even a broken clock is right twice a day I suppose.

[trofirhen]

Nice to see this part of the transit system on the front burner (or at least so it seems) again.

[Vestry]

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Vestry

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?

The picture? Translink does discuss it as an option.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vestry

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that looking in retrospect at the Canada Line construction on Cambie, and the finacial and legal turmoil that resulted, it was thought better to drill under 10th avenue, thereby not creating masses of lawsuits from Broadway merchants saying they had lost their business because the street was ripped up and inaccessible. It's going to be hard on the residents of 10th avenue, but that also depends largely on whether it's built cut-and-cover, or bored tunnel.

[officedweller]

The "Broadway Corridor" has been defined previously as from 8th Ave to 10th Ave.

10th Ave has historically been touted as the allignment because of fewer services under the roadway. Even if the tunnel is bored under Broadway, there would likely still need to be open pit excavation on Broadway for stations - and underground utilities would still hamper construction.

8th Ave. is a "no-go" because of a GVRD trunk sewer located under it.

Also, for the station at Oak (as for the Canada Line, Broadway - City Hall Station) - the station can be built into the hillside, reducing the number of escalators required to access platforms.

I could easily see the line being built "stacked" under 10th Ave since station access can be restricted to the north side only.

Originally Posted by Vestry

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?

Background here - under "Beyond the B-Line" (full report) - this also shows the Prince Edward St allignment:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/ubcline/previous.htm

[huenthar]

Why are they not looking at bringing it under Broadway sooner, with a station at Fraser/Broadway instead of GNW? The flats already have stations 500m away at VCC and at Main, and students etc can always ride the 84/replacement local bus along GNW/2nd - and if future development reaaally needs a new "closer" station in the Flats, the Expo line is <200m away on a flat alignment on Terminal.

Alternately, you could bring the guideway right over the roof of the low building by VCC-clark (forget who's in it) and bore the tunnel entrance into the steep northern hillside of China Creek park (where there's some crappy landscaping and nothing else). Several major advantages:

1. shorter route, and straighter route; = faster trip times; = cheaper construction costs
2. ridership; at GNW there will be a few hundred to a thousand students & employees, and a few residents across the street; whereas Fraser has a couple thousand residents in the catchment area (more riders, & much greater off-peak utilization), and riders off the busy #8
3. a GNW station serves only GNW campus; whereas a Fraser station greatly strengthens the bus service for the #8 bus line, thus somewhat serving trip times for the whole Fraser corridor (aside: the 22 will need to be tied in with VCC-Clark much better as well)
4. redundancy; as noted there are 2 other existing stations 500m away from GNW campus; the potential to build an Expo line station on Terminal if demand warrants it (I doubt it); and bus service along GNW could easily meet the demand (2-3 stops to either of two existing stations). Why are we building another km of guideway parallel to the existing route instead of spreading the system out as much as possible?
5. other than the campus itself, why would we want to encourage denser development of the Flats? Not only is it low-lying on mud and rubble (earthquake danger, like Richmond), it's excellently sited at the terminus of major rail corridors and as such is great for continuing to serve largely industrial uses (and many of you decry the relative lack of industrial mixed-use in the city proper, so...). Leave the Flats for industrial and the streetcar OMC.

Also, does anyone know if for option 'A' of the RRT option (from Commercial) if they evaluated it as if it were also a Millennium Line extension (ie abandon VCC-Clark), or did they assume it was a separate system? I really wonder if the expense of the extra length and complication of the route to bring it back under Broadway outweighs the expense of rebuilding that section by tunnelling right from Commercial-Broadway in a straight line all the way...