Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Millennium2002]

Alon, I'd love to agree with your analysis, but it sadly does not take into account current public and political opinion realities, some of which may seem very archaic if I could say so myself. They go as follows:

- South of Fraser commuters are disgruntled at their tax dollars heading towards the "subsidization" of the North of Fraser routes at the expense of lack of and insufficient service in their region. The same reverse feeling is true for North of Fraser commuters;
- Politicians across the region, aware of the high cost of living here, do not wish to have their property taxes rise further to fund TransLink, unless said money benefits their locality directly (but usually it's redistributed around towards major capital projects), hence the regional bickering that results
- In addition to the bickering above, rises of other taxes e.g. gas, parking, or sales taxes are usually met with hostility, protests, and avoidance, which tends to decrease their effectiveness.
- Provincial government is in $1.6 billion (?) or so deficit, and is committed to reducing that + funding other important services first vs a regional agency like TransLink

All of these combined make for a very nasty funding situation in which no one is really willing to give money to TransLink to do anything, no matter how logical (e.g. extension to UBC including Canada Line) it may sound.

Therefore, it'd be highly unlikely that your vision of a line to UBC in one go will happen as you envision it, despite all of the benefits of doing so. It just won't pass given the limited number of capital funds that can be pushed around and all the negative public opinion towards adding such funds to transit.

[Zassk]

The Broadway Line is not merely about where people live or want to live. Broadway is where the jobs are. Jobs are the other part of the transit equation. Jobs (and patrons) are the reason why Central Broadway, YVR and UBC are such high transit priorities. The whole region relies on those three places for jobs and services, more so than anywhere else outside of the downtown peninsula. These places need huge amounts of transit service, and are virtually impossible to serve adequately without rapid transit.

[Pinion]

Also medical facilities. It seems like every month someone in my family is around the Broadway/10th area to go to a doctor's appointment of some sort. Pretty much the whole lower mainland needs and wants easy access to the west end.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alon

Meh. If you terminate at Cambie then you're right, people can continue to use the 99-B (as they do today). But if the terminus is anywhere west of Cambie and east of UBC, you'll still have to run the buses as far east as Cambie, to avoid making what is now a two-seat ride from Downtown a three-seat ride, with the middle leg an annoying 2- or 3-station hop. So you'd be raising rather than reducing operating costs. (That's the combo 2 alternative studied.)

I don't see your reasoning at all. It would be like running a bus from Bridgeport south along No. 3 road in parallel with the Canada Line to Westminster Highway just because some people have to bus further south than that. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

And the other issue, which I don't know if the ridership model considered, is that passengers have transfer penalties, and those are especially large when the transfer is near the destination.

It doesn't seem to be preventing SFU students from taking the Skytrain to Production Way and then busing up the hill.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Pretty much the whole lower mainland needs and wants easy access to the west end.

Not to be picky but for the the sake of future clarification, if I'm not mistaken:

West End = Downtown's West
West Side = Rest of Vancouver West of Main
And of course West Van = North Western suburb of Vancouver

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by usog

As a previous poster said, take a look at who benefits from a skytrain to UBC, and who benefits from taking that money and putting it into south of fraser? I'd think transit boost is more important to the middle/lower class suburb area rather than the university students/super rich vancouver west people. I just don't get how people can put skytrain to UBC above so many other priorities. Of course skytrain to Cambie is a given in the future.

While some form or rapid transit to UBC may not be needed today or even in the distance future.

Rapid transit to at least Granville or Arbutus is a must.

The worst nightmare scenerio would be if they were to expand skytrain in Surrey. Now lets say the expand it down King George and Fraser Hwy. And with this expansion they see a significant increase is transit users from Surrey. Now even if only 10% of those new users had a destination of Broadway. It would cause such a major problem of congestion on Broadway. That there is a good chance we might loose those 10% of riders because they can't be bothered to take transit on Broadway.

Keep this in mind your system is only as strong as your weakest link. And if your weakest link is near the centre of your city. It will have a detrimental effect on the rest of the system.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

West End = Downtown's West
West Side = Rest of Vancouver West of Main
And of course West Van = North Western suburb of Vancouver

Knowledge of these phrases is the true test of a Vancouverite...

[Alon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't see your reasoning at all. It would be like running a bus from Bridgeport south along No. 3 road in parallel with the Canada Line to Westminster Highway just because some people have to bus further south than that. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The difference is that because a Broadway subway would make almost the same stops as the 99-B, it would allow eliminating the bus service and possibly also reducing service on the 84 and the 9, reducing operating costs. That's why the model assumes some operating cost reduction from an all-the-way SkyTrain alternative but a small increase from a hybrid option in which SkyTrain terminates at Arbutus. It's $11 million a year net, which at the risk-free 1.5% discount rate works out to $730 million now (independently of extra revenue produced by new transit riders, I believe), almost the entire difference in capital cost between all-the-way and Arbutus.

It doesn't seem to be preventing SFU students from taking the Skytrain to Production Way and then busing up the hill.

Not familiar enough with SFU to know the mode splits for students and employees (inc. faculty), but there's a difference between "people never transfer near the destination" and "there's a significant destination-side transfer penalty."

Evidently, people do ride trains to off-CBD stations requiring a lot of walking or a bus or local rail transfer. For examples, 4th and King in San Francisco on Caltrain, North Station in Boston on the MBTA, and even Penn Station in New York. But in New York's case they do so grudgingly, and in the others the mode share of commuter rail is not very high. Likewise, a paper I recently read comparing projected with actual ridership on third-world subway systems mentions Porto Alegre negatively for using a legacy rail corridor that's tangent to the CBD instead of going through it; it doesn't mean there's zero ridership in Porto Alegre, just that ridership underperformed expectations.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Knowledge of these phrases is the true test of a Vancouverite...

I was born on Burrard street downtown but I guess I'm not a Vancouverite.

Don't make me start a rant about how you southies call SW and SE Marine just "Marine drive" when that is on the north shore.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alon

The difference is that because a Broadway subway would make almost the same stops as the 99-B, it would allow eliminating the bus service and possibly also reducing service on the 84 and the 9, reducing operating costs.

What I don't understand is anyone would bother running the 99-B in parallel with a partially-extended Millenium line. Why wouldn't UBC-bound B-line buses initiate their trips at the westmost Skytrain station?

Not familiar enough with SFU to know the mode splits for students and employees (inc. faculty), but there's a difference between "people never transfer near the destination" and "there's a significant destination-side transfer penalty."

The thing is that people don't generally penalize transfers very much if they know they're going to be fast. So transfers between the Millenium and Expo lines are not seen as a big burden compared to a transfer to a typical local bus service. And transfers from Skytrain to a B-line bus that runs at 5 minute or shorter intervals is not really as big a deal as you seem to make it out to be.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I was born on Burrard street downtown but I guess I'm not a Vancouverite.

Don't make me start a rant about how you southies call SW and SE Marine just "Marine drive" when that is on the north shore.

Lol! Very true. For the record, my original comment was more a point to avoid confusion from others who aren't familiar with the city, so they didn't have to figure it out using context.

[David]

Technically, the original statement could be accurate anyways, as taking the extended M-Line to a station at Burrard and transferring to a bus up Burrard to the West End would probably be quicker for a lot of people trying to get to the West End than the current situation!

[GMasterAres]

I'm still not sure why people argue Surrey doesn't have the density to command more SkyTrain access. I don't think those arguing this have stepped foot into Surrey in the last 10 years.

Just an FYI, the vast majority of new developments in Surrey are more dense per acre than anything along Broadway. The thing about Broadway is you have a peak density right along Broadway itself. A lot of buildings in a few stretches around Burrard, Granville, Oak, and Cambie. But you go 1 block either direction and you hit low density houses instantly.

In Surrey, along most major routes you don't get that peak density right along the major routes like Fraser Highway or 104th for example, but you go 5 blocks either direction and you have developments that put 110-150 townhouse units in less than 1 acre of land.

That's where I think people miss the realities of density in Surrey. New density in Surrey is a bit more medium and even wheras in most of Vancouver you go from PEAK highrise to 1 block later LOW single house so you get the illusion that major roads are far more dense than anything in the region or Surrey specifically.

At the end though I'm not sure why there is even a debate. Both areas of the city need rapid transit. It shouldn't be 1 or the other. That's our issue in metro Vancouver is there are far to many THEM OR US debates and arguments. Surrey deserves more SkyTrain yesterday. And Broadway quite frankly should have been done before the Millenium Line.

[GMasterAres]

And for the record, why do people need to go to the West End from the suburbs? It's all residential. And the few medical buildings, quite frankly, are a choice to go to rather than a requirement. Unless you're talking about a specialist but in that case, sorry but you're a minority of travellers. There are plenty of doctors and nurse practitioners out in the burbs available for the general public.

Unfortunately people get stuck in this "I always went to X doctor in downtown so imma stick to it cuz ma grandmother went to X doctor!" My sister is an example, she continued going to our doctor downtown and lives in South Surrey. She used to complain how difficult it was to go to see her downtown and we basically said, um why don't you get a doctor closer?

She did, and it's better now and the doctor is great.

So besides that, why would anyone want to go there? I'm being honest. I grew up in Surrey and quite frankly went 20+ years without stepping foot downtown. I didn't neeed to. Everything is available out here. *shrug* Only reason I would justify going to the West End is to go to Stanley Park. Then again it's not like we don't have parks growing out our behinds here in Surrey, and I can bike to them, or find a free parking spot if I want to drive to one a bit further.

[Zassk]

^^^ I think you are going to great pains to downplay the importance of the two most important hospital campuses in the region, and the importance of the Central Broadway business district as a travel destination. The simple fact is that Surrey has no equivalent district at this time. Even Metrotown is not directly comparable. In 25 years Surrey may have a district that matches Broadway's combination of job and residential density, but if you feel Broadway does not merit rapid transit now, then why would Surrey merit rapid transit at any point?

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Zassk

In 25 years Surrey may have a district that matches Broadway's combination of job and residential density, but if you feel Broadway does not merit rapid transit now, then why would Surrey merit rapid transit at any point?

I think the point that he was making is that since Surrey's new developments are denser than Vancouver's SFH a few blocks from the corridor, that there is more potential ridership in Surrey.

Personally, I suspect that Vancouver's SFH lots, which are about 40' wide, are a whole lot denser than people think.

That being said, I suspect that a main reason there are still scads of sfh in the Broadway corridor is because some demand for more dense housing close to the core was transferred along the SkyTrain lines. Joyce-Collingwood, Metrotown, Brentwood/Gilmore, Edmonds, etc.

Would those area have high rises if there was no train? The only area that I can think of that has high rises in the absence of a train line are the few apartments that were around Lougheed mall before the station, Uptown New Westminster (which have been around for ages), and Port Moody (which was expecting a line).

Demolishing buildings along the corridor to put up taller ones is more expensive than building on relatively open land. Once there is a firm commitment to building the M-Line West, I suspect you'll see developers start looking to consolidate house purchases along the corridor.

[logan5]

Just to compare densities... Surrey City Centre is 5.6 sq km's and has 28 000 residents = 5000/sq km. Fairview has a bit of a smaller area but its density is much higher - 8200/sq km. Even Mt. Pleasant has a higher density at 6500/sq km. As well as much higher employment density throughout the corridor (as has been mentioned).

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i don't think we need to dumb down the system for stupid people, society needs to stop catering to them, if they are stupid enough to not know how to get to metrotown than they deserve to stand there waiting

overheard on the Burrard platform:

"The only trains we've seen stop here are white ones and grey ones. Where do the Blue line and Yellow line trains stop?"

or better - on the City Hall platform:

"This train is going to the airport. The next train will take us to to Oakridge Centre."

[LotusLand]

Originally Posted by jhausner

And for the record, why do people need to go to the West End from the suburbs? It's all residential. And the few medical buildings, quite frankly, are a choice to go to rather than a requirement. Unless you're talking about a specialist but in that case, sorry but you're a minority of travellers. There are plenty of doctors and nurse practitioners out in the burbs available for the general public.

Unfortunately people get stuck in this "I always went to X doctor in downtown so imma stick to it cuz ma grandmother went to X doctor!" My sister is an example, she continued going to our doctor downtown and lives in South Surrey. She used to complain how difficult it was to go to see her downtown and we basically said, um why don't you get a doctor closer?

She did, and it's better now and the doctor is great.

So besides that, why would anyone want to go there? I'm being honest. I grew up in Surrey and quite frankly went 20+ years without stepping foot downtown. I didn't neeed to. Everything is available out here. *shrug* Only reason I would justify going to the West End is to go to Stanley Park. Then again it's not like we don't have parks growing out our behinds here in Surrey, and I can bike to them, or find a free parking spot if I want to drive to one a bit further.

Yep you're right Stanley Park is overrated, give me Bear Creek park any day of the week. The Seawall? Who gives a shit about that, I can ride my bike down Scott Road and count the number of people waiting for a bus on both hands. The beaches, meh White Rock and Crescent is where all the action is. The shopping, whatever. Who needs downtown stores when you have Guildford and Central City Mall.

[Alon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

What I don't understand is anyone would bother running the 99-B in parallel with a partially-extended Millenium line. Why wouldn't UBC-bound B-line buses initiate their trips at the westmost Skytrain station?

Oh, don't get me wrong, it totally could. But it would add an extra transfer for everyone connecting from the Expo or Canada Lines, i.e. everyone traveling from Downtown.

The thing is that people don't generally penalize transfers very much if they know they're going to be fast. So transfers between the Millenium and Expo lines are not seen as a big burden compared to a transfer to a typical local bus service. And transfers from Skytrain to a B-line bus that runs at 5 minute or shorter intervals is not really as big a deal as you seem to make it out to be.

For the record, all of the models and case studies I'm channeling here are for high-frequency subways, or for services with timed transfers. The Yonge-University subway in Toronto has the same frequency as SkyTrain, the Orange Line in Boston has 5-minute peak frequency (and for North American commuter rail peak is all that counts), and so on.

The models used for subways, depending on which agency you believe, have two components for the transfer penalty: a single number independent of all other considerations, and an extra weighting factor for time spent walking between platforms or waiting. For example, New York's MTA believes that the independent number is 0, i.e. the only transfer penalty comes from the additional waiting time and the walking time, and the weighting factor is 1.75, i.e. passengers weight time spent waiting or transferring 1.75 times as much as time spent in motion. The MBTA believes the numbers are 13 and 2.25 respectively.

The evidence for an additional destination-end transfer penalty is separate. For intercity travel (which exhibits higher transfer penalties in general), it comes from surveys of passengers, who say they prefer origin-end transfers to mid-trip and destination-end transfers. And then there are the high-frequency subways in Toronto (or Boston), the high-frequency buses in San Francisco, and even the timed buses in Austin, none of which has done much to raise mode share.

Originally Posted by jhausner

I'm still not sure why people argue Surrey doesn't have the density to command more SkyTrain access. I don't think those arguing this have stepped foot into Surrey in the last 10 years.

Because Surrey does, in fact, have lower density than the West Side. See map of density per census tract here. Langley, Fleetwood, and Newton are somewhat denser than the less dense parts of Kits and Point Grey, somewhat less dense than the medium-density parts, and substantially less dense than the denser parts of Fairview.

And Surrey doesn't have Central Broadway or UBC.