Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[amor de cosmos]

double post

[The_Henry_Man]

I have a feeling that if nothing gets resolved, Commercial-Broadway Station will be the transit version of the Cape Horn interchange and the Broadway Corridor the transit version of TCH-1 around the Cape Horn. If time passes by without a long-term solution, it'll take an even more gigantic and costlier program than the Gateway Project to build a subway line. Do it line while it's still "cheaper" than in the future.

[OhioGuy]

Presumably subway stations along Broadway would have the same platform lengths as the Millenium Line (80 meters), as opposed to cutting corners similar to the Canada Line (50 meters or less)?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Presumably subway stations along Broadway would have the same platform lengths as the Millenium Line (80 meters), as opposed to cutting corners similar to the Canada Line (50 meters or less)?

SkyTrain has narrower vehicles, and would have required longer platforms even if it had been chosen for the Canada Line. Basically, a 76-meter SkyTrain train is equivalent to a 50-meter Canada Line train. Therefore there is no concern about platforms ever being built less than 80m for a SkyTrain line under any circumstance. The only real question is whether to build the platforms at 100m or 120m instead of 80m. In the interests of keeping the costs within reach, I doubt that any extra station length would be contemplated for Broadway.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Zassk

SkyTrain has narrower vehicles, and would have required longer platforms even if it had been chosen for the Canada Line. Basically, a 76-meter SkyTrain train is equivalent to a 50-meter Canada Line train. Therefore there is no concern about platforms ever being built less than 80m for a SkyTrain line under any circumstance. The only real question is whether to build the platforms at 100m or 120m instead of 80m. In the interests of keeping the costs within reach, I doubt that any extra station length would be contemplated for Broadway.

If that is the case, what would the maximum train length on the Broadway line be? How many cars? Four?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Zassk

SkyTrain has narrower vehicles, and would have required longer platforms even if it had been chosen for the Canada Line. Basically, a 76-meter SkyTrain train is equivalent to a 50-meter Canada Line train. Therefore there is no concern about platforms ever being built less than 80m for a SkyTrain line under any circumstance. The only real question is whether to build the platforms at 100m or 120m instead of 80m. In the interests of keeping the costs within reach, I doubt that any extra station length would be contemplated for Broadway.

Although, given the relatively consistent elevation along the Broadway corridor (apart from the big hill west of Alma), it shouldn't cost anywhere as much as going beyond the Canada Line's 50-metres to have a longer platform allowance for the future.

Also, capacity wise, the train capacity allowed by the Canada Line's 50-metre platform is actually much less than what the SkyTrain 80-metre platform will allow.

[nname]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Also, capacity wise, the train capacity allowed by the Canada Line's 50-metre platform is actually much less than what the SkyTrain 80-metre platform will allow.

Which is still more than any at-grade LRT, despite some other people claimed otherwise...

[Spork]

Originally Posted by nname

Which is still more than any at-grade LRT, despite some other people claimed otherwise...

What are you talking about? LRT in every city in the world has capacity of at least 50,000 pph, with some reaching 250,000 pph. The SkyTrain Lobby(tm) would have you believe otherwise.

This is kind of fun, actually. Maybe I will switch sides.

[city-dweller]

Most of my comments have already been voiced here. Two things bug me though that have not been voiced:

1) Why are they not comparing the present net value of the technologies? The fight appears to be over upfront capital investment and not the lifetime costs associated. The longevity of the skytrain/metro is way longer 100+ years not to mention driver vs. automated and the associated labour costs wages, pensions, etc.

2) Look at slide/page 34 of the city presentation where it discusses LRT impacts. The bullet: "Neighbourhoods – reduced connectivity & livability" is complete BS. I am not defending the LRT option here. I am pointing out that as someone who has studied this stuff and visited other cities with LRT that I would not accuse the mode of being bad for livability.How is more reliable and quieter rapid transit a problem? Where has it been demonstrated that this impacts livability negatively?

*I have always hoped for a metro to UBC so that there is space for eventually having the local 9 is replaced with tram system and corresponding public realm improvements. Slow local and fast commuter

[Metro-One]

I would say an underground skytrain is more reliable and quiet than a surface LRT.

The reason why this LRT would impact connectivity is because the trains would literally take up entire city blocks, 90% of intersections would have turn restrictions, and due to Broadways relatively restricted space sidewalks would actually be reduced in width in many areas, very directly affecting pedestrian connectivity.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

Most of my comments have already been voiced here. Two things bug me though that have not been voiced:

1) Why are they not comparing the present net value of the technologies? The fight appears to be over upfront capital investment and not the lifetime costs associated. The longevity of the skytrain/metro is way longer 100+ years not to mention driver vs. automated and the associated labour costs wages, pensions, etc.

2) Look at slide/page 34 of the city presentation where it discusses LRT impacts. The bullet: "Neighbourhoods – reduced connectivity & livability" is complete BS. I am not defending the LRT option here. I am pointing out that as someone who has studied this stuff and visited other cities with LRT that I would not accuse the mode of being bad for livability.How is more reliable and quieter rapid transit a problem? Where has it been demonstrated that this impacts livability negatively?

*I have always hoped for a metro to UBC so that there is space for eventually having the local 9 is replaced with tram system and corresponding public realm improvements. Slow local and fast commuter

Broadway is already a very narrow street for LRT, and it gets even narrower west of Macdonald. Yet, Broadway is also one of the largest East-West road arteries in the city. You have to sacrifice traffic lane and pedestrian space throughout the length of the street to accommodate the LRT ROW and even more space has to be sacrificed for where the station platforms are.

As Metro said, 90% of the intersections will have turn restrictions. To be exact, 62/67 intersections along the entire route (no left turns) - many streets will be blocked off from crossing Broadway considering the frequencies needed to accommodate Broadway ridership demand, that's a true ROW. So, that means you'll see increased traffic within side streets...cars have to turn out of Broadway into side streets and find a street that opens to the other side of Broadway. That means you'll see more traffic in side streets along Broadway. You're essentially placing a wall along Broadway, it would be just like the Canada Line's Cambie Street cut-and-cover traffic patterns...only throughway via the artery streets.

That's where the livability argument comes from. If this were a streetcar that flows within traffic lanes, it would be a different story...although a story that, like LRT, would be at capacity on Day 1.

[officedweller]

You just have to look at the turn restrictions proposed for Eglinton (beyond the tunnel) in Toronto to see the impact. Basically, you'll have to do a "Michigan Left" to do a left turn at major intersections (i.e. a U-turn then a right turn), and that's only possible because there's a median.

[mr.A]

Majority of nw98 listener voted today against a tunnel! see nw98 website!
Very sad! We still not thinking for the future!

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mr.A

Majority of nw98 listener voted today against a tunnel! see nw98 website!
Very sad! We still not thinking for the future!

My guess is that many of them are area residents who fear that they'd be impacted more by a tunnel more than LRT, or else fear that a bored tunnel would cost too much. (of course, I don't know, not being there to hear it)

[nname]

Originally Posted by mr.A

Majority of nw98 listener voted today against a tunnel! see nw98 website!
Very sad! We still not thinking for the future!

Look at the wording of the question... it is basically asking 6 different questions at the same time...

1. Do you support building a rapid system on Broadway
2. Do you think Broadway rapid transit should go all the way to UBC
3. Do you support SkyTrain over LRT?
4. Do you support building a SkyTrain all the way to UBC (instead of 2 phased approach)
5. Do you support building it underground?
6. Do you support building it underground all the way to UBC?

This is almost exactly how Port Moody "rejected" SkyTrain a decade ago.. basically you have to support all 1-6 to vote "yes". Otherwise, after you think about the question (and have an image of train going underground through the park), you'll be finding yourself looking at the "no" option...

[dleung]

The question should be

"What would you rather use to bail out an already-sinking canoe?"

A- Bucket
B- Teaspoon

[roleypolinde]

Anytime there is a hard push for LRT with a lot of misinformation, generalization and half truths, I like to refer to this video for why I don't want LRT in Vancouver

Houston Metro's Greatest Hits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc

[mr.x]

UBC's Patrick Condon has another article today in the Tyee on why Broadway should be LRT: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/11/28/TransLink-Light-Rail/

It's worth a read, at least he's giving some data albeit perhaps not the most accurate nor ideal comparisons and equivalent examples. No mentions of Prius this time though.

Some folks have also debunked Condon's article in the comments section. Also, look out for zweisystem under the "Grumpy" alias in the comments.

[WarrenC12]

Those comments make my head hurt.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by nname

Look at the wording of the question... it is basically asking 6 different questions at the same time...

1. Do you support building a rapid system on Broadway
2. Do you think Broadway rapid transit should go all the way to UBC
3. Do you support SkyTrain over LRT?
4. Do you support building a SkyTrain all the way to UBC (instead of 2 phased approach)
5. Do you support building it underground?
6. Do you support building it underground all the way to UBC?

This is almost exactly how Port Moody "rejected" SkyTrain a decade ago.. basically you have to support all 1-6 to vote "yes". Otherwise, after you think about the question (and have an image of train going underground through the park), you'll be finding yourself looking at the "no" option...

I heard the question on NW briefly today. The first thing I thought was the question was worded in such a way to get a specific result. I believe the question was.

"Do you support rapid transit to UBC underground"

Now someone might support rapid transit but not to UBC or underground so they vote no.
Another person might support something to UBC but not rapid transit and not underground so they so no
A third person may support something underground and does support rapid transit but not to UBC so they say no.

Suddenly now one question has a lot of negatives to it. Thus my opinion who ever created the question wanted a certain result.

This is why I hate polls and think they should be banned.