Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Always count on the Georgia Straight to publish something "against the man"....they have a anti-Broadway SkyTrain/pro-LRT article and a big part of it is on Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan's views: http://www.straight.com/article-844381/vancouver/burnaby-mayor-slams-broadway-line-talk

Obviously, he's against it...who didn't see that one coming?

I didn't see it coming. Skytrain through the Broadway Corridor directly to UBC clearly benefits residents of Burnaby (and the other suburbs) far more than it does people living within Vancouver proper (especially on the West Side), most of whom can already get to Broadway or UBC quite conveniently by walking, riding a bike, taking a bus or just driving.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by 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

They do a service to us all. Those people shouldn't be on the road in the first place, and public transit makes sure they're off. Poetic justice I say.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I didn't see it coming. Skytrain through the Broadway Corridor directly to UBC clearly benefits residents of Burnaby (and the other suburbs) far more than it does people living within Vancouver proper (especially on the West Side), most of whom can already get to Broadway or UBC quite conveniently by walking, riding a bike, taking a bus or just driving.

Well, Corrigan has been known to be a fervently against Vancouver receiving "more than its 'fair' share" of transit services.

During Canada Line debates, he was extremely opposed to its construction instead of the Evergreen Line. He was also one of the most vocal people who claimed the Canada Line would never meet ridership expectations....he went very quiet when the Canada Line opened and met its ridership targets within a year.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by nname

1. Improve signalling and train control software
2. Extend the line toward Hastings and short-turn every second train at Waterfront (with a pocket track)
3. Extend the line (North Shore or West End from Burrard?) and create a split like the one in Bridgeport and Columbia, with alternate trains going toward each branch
4. Extend the line and create a loop so train don't need to turn around

One of the report clearly stated that they're going to do #1 and squeeze a few more seconds out of the system.

If any of 2-4 is done, then the new limiting factor would probably be King George or Commercial-Broadway...

I've seen them do double train at King George quite a bit actually. That's where they have a train come in on the right track then while it is in station, a second train comes in on the left track. The right train then goes past to turn around, the left track train fills and then leaves and right after it leaves the second train goes back onto the left track.

With that configuration I've seen them push trains through quite fast in the station. It isn't done often more when they are cycling trains in and out of service towards the end of the day or at the start of rush hour but it does happen.

The only reason Waterfront is the limiting factor though is since it is the only terminus seeing every station. As you start to ramp up capacity on Millennium and/or Expo to King George, they still need to go through Waterfront. There also becomes a point where you can't increase capacity in Surrey or along Millennium line past Columbia without the single line between Columbia and Waterfront having trains too tight together.

This is the main issue with extending Millennium to UBC and eventually extending Expo out to Langley. I think they'd have to start shuttle trains then or breaking the entire line into segments then you cause bottle necks. That's why I am a huge advocate for not just upgrading transportation in regards to transit/roads but also changing our development in the region to encourage less transit between "the burbs" and Vancouver itself. If you had more people in Langley, Surrey, Delta for example commuting to Surrey Central with more jobs, offices, and business, you lower the demand on transit to Vancouver.

Also conceivably you could reduce some load on the expo stretch if the line goes out to UBC because people can then ride the Millennium stretch now where currently they need to ride Expo even though they are going nowhere near downtown.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Well, Corrigan has been known to be a fervently against Vancouver receiving "more than its 'fair' share" of transit services.

During Canada Line debates, he was extremely opposed to its construction instead of the Evergreen Line. He was also one of the most vocal people who claimed the Canada Line would never meet ridership expectations....he went very quiet when the Canada Line opened and met its ridership targets within a year.

He's opposed to everything that doesn't directly benefit Burnaby that's why for the region his views should typically be ignored.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Well, Corrigan has been known to be a fervently against Vancouver receiving "more than its 'fair' share" of transit services.

But that was my point: the largest share of transit service from the UBC Line will go to Burnaby, not Vancouver. Locals don't have many problems getting to Broadway or UBC. Burnaby residents, by contrast, do. The UBC Line will allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to live and pay taxes in Burnaby and still get to the region's primary hubs of employment and education with convenience for the first time.

Self-interest dictates that any mayor of Burnaby should be a champion of the UBC Line, not a detractor.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I didn't see it coming. Skytrain through the Broadway Corridor directly to UBC clearly benefits residents of Burnaby (and the other suburbs) far more than it does people living within Vancouver proper (especially on the West Side), most of whom can already get to Broadway or UBC quite conveniently by walking, riding a bike, taking a bus or just driving.

Benefit for Burnaby residents isn't the agenda there, the agenda is "brings people and business directly to Burnaby." If it doesn't do that then he is against it. While a UBC would clearly benefit Burnaby and other muni residents like Surrey, New West, Coquitlam, it's purpose is to get people to UBC which is not Burnaby.

That's why he would be against it. Same deal with Canada Line. It gets people to Richmond/Vancouver/YVR, which isn't Burnaby. That's why he was against Gateway because it's main boost is transit through Burnaby and main focus was improving connection between Coquitlam and Surrey/Langley, not Burnaby. That's the pattern.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

But that was my point: the largest share of transit service from the UBC Line will go to Burnaby, not Vancouver. The UBC Line allows tens of thousands more workers and students to live in Burnaby and still get to the Metro's primary hubs of employment and education.

Not really. Not if you look at the demographic. I think a UBC line will benefit the Broadway corridor more than any benefit it would bring to Burnaby. Yes does it give easier access to the Brentwood area? Sure. But that's already having no issue building up and if it built up faster prices would increase even quicker and price the area out of UBC student's ability to afford. So students would then be flowing further through to New West and Surrey or sticking around Broadway.

For workers, you may be right but without knowing where most workers live today that would be harder to tell. I know there is a part of his point that all the Mayor's make, then Translink needs to really deal with the funding issue at the bottom of everything first before they plan the next big adventure, but if it doesn't directly benefit Burnaby, he is typically if not always against it. And a UBC extension, while it would have benefits to Burnaby, doesn't directly benefit because it also increases the attraction of other 'competing' areas or the region equally.

Let's face it, if the line shaves of 20 minutes of commute time to Burnaby, it also shaves off 20 minutes to New West, Coquitlam, and Surrey so you're basically where you are today.

Look at the scenario,

"ok the extension means I can get from Burnaby Metrotown/Brentwood now in 30 minutes vs 60 minutes in the past... nice. But that also means I can get from New West in 40 minutes and Surrey Central in 45 minutes... hmm... 15 minutes more to save $500 a month in rent while I'm spending thousands in tuition at UBC? I'll go the extra 15 minutes because that is still less time than it takes today!"

I have found in my experience that when commute times are under an hour, +- 15 minutes doesn't actually have a huge impact on desirability, cost becomes more important. So long as rental/housing cost spread are noticeably larger than the commute cost difference in 1 extra zone and time between the two, people will go with cheaper rental/housing costs.

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I didn't see it coming. Skytrain through the Broadway Corridor directly to UBC clearly benefits residents of Burnaby (and the other suburbs) far more than it does people living within Vancouver proper (especially on the West Side), most of whom can already get to Broadway or UBC quite conveniently by walking, riding a bike, taking a bus or just driving.

I believe the bus driver's union (CUPE?) is a large donor to Corrigan. They were strongly against an automated Canada Line because it meant less work for them. They are also against the tram to SFU and now the proposed Broadway extension. It is no surprise to me that Corrigan won't support the current Broadway extension.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Smooth

I believe the bus driver's union (CUPE?) is a large donor to Corrigan. They were strongly against an automated Canada Line because it meant less work for them. They are also against the tram to SFU and now the proposed Broadway extension. It is no surprise to me that Corrigan won't support the current Broadway extension.

What civic official in BC isn't a union puppet?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by jhausner

They do a service to us all. Those people shouldn't be on the road in the first place, and public transit makes sure they're off. Poetic justice I say.

Or real-world examples of Darwin's theories.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by Smooth

I believe the bus driver's union (CUPE?) is a large donor to Corrigan. They were strongly against an automated Canada Line because it meant less work for them. They are also against the tram to SFU and now the proposed Broadway extension. It is no surprise to me that Corrigan won't support the current Broadway extension.

That makes all kinds of no sense. The whole idea is to free up buses to redistribute service elsewhere, like SOF, not reduce it and have a bunch of empty buses sitting in the garage. As a driver, is driving back and forth down Broadway with jam-packed buses really your ideal gig?

Meanwhile Corrigan says this in the article:"It’s just not on the radar at all"

... holy moly is he ever out of touch, it's been at or near the #1 spot on the radar for 20 years! How can somebody actually say that with a straight face? It's not quite a bald-faced lie but it's pretty darn close!!!

[amor de cosmos]

November 28, 2012, 1:37 pm
Broadway rapid transit: the view from TransLink

As you may know, there’s been much discussion about rapid transit along Broadway to UBC in the news today!

That’s because the City of Vancouver staff made a presentation recommending endorsing a subway out to UBC along the Broadway corridor yesterday. There’s been an ensuing discussion about what the right technology is and what UBC would also like, and that’s triggered a great number of articles like the ones here: CKWX, Globe and Mail 1, Globe and Mail 2, Vancouver Courier, Metro, Vancouver Sun, Georgia Straight, and 24 Hours. (And blog posts: Stephen Rees, Vancouver councillor Geoff Meggs.)

The view from TransLink

All this aside, from TransLink’s side, we’re well aware that rapid transit is needed on Broadway to meet their immense demand.

However, we’re also conscious that cities in Metro Vancouver are eager to make investments all across the region to help meet their transportation needs. In 2013, we’re planning to facilitate a regional dialogue to figure out those investment needs and tradeoffs. (The process will help develop the sequel to our Transport 2040 long range plan!)

And as well, we are in the process of finishing the UBC Line Rapid Transit Study, a study that identified and evaluated a range of options for rapid transit on Broadway. (We’re also finishing a simultaneous study in Surrey.)

When the studies are concluded by early 2013, we will have a better understanding of the benefits and tradeoffs of different solutions that have been evaluated and consulted on publicly. Please do look at the UBC Line Rapid Transit Study site, or the Buzzer’s past UBC Line study posts!

http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2012/11/broadway-rapid-transit-the-view-from-translink/

Originally Posted by mr.x

Well, Corrigan has been known to be a fervently against Vancouver receiving "more than its 'fair' share" of transit services.

I've never understood this, there was someone from surrey who said something similar too. Despite their pretentions, vancouver is & always should be the central city:

12.21.11
Economic Commentary
Urban Growth and Decline: The Role of Population Density at the City Core
Kyle Fee and Daniel Hartley

In recent decades, some cities have seen their urban centers lose population density, as residents spread farther out to suburbs and exurbs. Others have kept populous downtowns even as their environs have grown. Population density in general has economic advantages, so one might wonder whether a loss of density, which may be a symptom of negative economic shocks, could amplify those shocks. We look at four decades of census data and show that growing cities have maintained dense urban centers, while shrinking cities have not. There are reasons to think that loss of population density at the core of the city could be particularly damaging to productivity. If this is the case, there could be productivity gains from policies aimed at reversing that trend.

The density maps reveal an outward spread of low-density suburbs in all four metro areas. Atlanta seems to maintain or increase its density in the center, while Chicago becomes less dense on the West Side and South Side (within the City of Chicago) but becomes denser in the Loop and near the Loop, the central downtown commercial district. In contrast, Cleveland and Detroit lose much of their density in the central cities.

Overall, in growing cities, population density either remained the same or increased in most areas. In contrast, in shrinking cities, formerly high-density city centers saw the biggest drop in density, while the surrounding low-density areas saw an increase population density. In practice, this thinning out of high-density areas of shrinking cities is consistent with population movements out of urban areas and into the surrounding suburbs.



Does Core Density Matter?

Evidence suggests that denser MSAs are more productive. We have shown that population loss at the MSA level tends to be associated with a drop in population density at the core of the MSA. A question for future research is whether core density is particularly important for productivity or if the average level of population density across the MSA is all that matters. If core density is important for productivity, then it might be important for policymakers across the entire MSA to consider measures aimed at keeping the center city densely populated.

Of course, policymakers need to take into consideration the desire that individual households may have for low-density housing far from the city center and weigh it against the productivity advantages of density. In some respects, by promoting a dense core they may just be undoing or counteracting other policy incentives that are already in place and distorting individuals’ natural behaviors.

Economists have found evidence that the construction of the interstate highway system played a part in fostering the growth of suburbs, as it provided quick access to city centers from the periphery. In large cities with congested highways, long commute times provide a restraint on how far out people want to live. However, this restraint is less present in shrinking cities whose highways flow smoothly.

Other policies, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction, provide incentives for households to live in places with owner-occupied housing, which tend to be in less dense places that have more single-family homes. Better schools and lower crime are often cited as reasons to move to the suburbs, yet it is not clear to what degree these differences may have been driven by policies that provide incentives for wealthier people to move further away.

If population density near the heart of a city helps keep a city growing and more productive, policymakers may want to consider the possibility of creating incentives for higher-density living. This may be especially worth looking at in MSAs with declining populations.

http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-27.cfm

http://streetsblog.net/2012/01/04/study-the-key-to-a-healthy-region-is-a-strong-central-city/

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I didn't see it coming. Skytrain through the Broadway Corridor directly to UBC clearly benefits residents of Burnaby (and the other suburbs) far more than it does people living within Vancouver proper (especially on the West Side), most of whom can already get to Broadway or UBC quite conveniently by walking, riding a bike, taking a bus or just driving.

Too bad Corrigan can't understand that just as the UBC line would make it easier for Burnaby residents to get to points in Vancouver west of Commercial Drive, it will also make it easier for Vancouver residents living west of Commercial Drive to get to Burnaby (and New West, Surrey, and Poco too) for their SFU / shopping / business / entertainment needs.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by huenthar

That makes all kinds of no sense. The whole idea is to free up buses to redistribute service elsewhere, like SOF, not reduce it and have a bunch of empty buses sitting in the garage. As a driver, is driving back and forth down Broadway with jam-packed buses really your ideal gig?

Meanwhile Corrigan says this in the article:"It’s just not on the radar at all"

... holy moly is he ever out of touch, it's been at or near the #1 spot on the radar for 20 years! How can somebody actually say that with a straight face? It's not quite a bald-faced lie but it's pretty darn close!!!

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Too bad Corrigan can't understand that just as the UBC line would make it easier for Burnaby residents to get to points in Vancouver west of Commercial Drive, it will also make it easier for Vancouver residents living west of Commercial Drive to get to Burnaby (and New West, Surrey, and Poco too) for their SFU / shopping / business / entertainment needs.

What about Corrigan do Burnaby citizens like? I suppose you could say that he does "fight" for their interests, while shitting on every other city and the region as a whole...and it has kept it in power for exactly a decade. Pretty sure he's lying.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2012/11/broadway-rapid-transit-the-view-from-translink/

I've never understood this, there was someone from surrey who said something similar too. Despite their pretentions, vancouver is & always should be the central city:


http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2011/2011-27.cfm

http://streetsblog.net/2012/01/04/study-the-key-to-a-healthy-region-is-a-strong-central-city/

Thanks for the info and links.

I think someone on here brought up a great analogy: that if we "spread the wealth" across the region and diffuse what should be in Downtown Vancouver, we'll end up as a region of a bunch of Saskatoons.

That was a brilliant analogy. Fact is, a strong central city enables greater economies of scale for more and better things (whether it be jobs, attractions, infrastructure, you name it) - not just for the central city itself, but for the entire region...which otherwise would not see the benefits incurred were it not for the focus on the central city.

That's why I'm greatly opposed to the idea of turning Surrey into a full-fledged second "metropolitan area" for Metro Vancouver.

Not saying there shouldn't be regional town centres though, those are fantastic and are within the medium - far short of becoming a metropolitan area.

And it's also why I'm a supporter of amalgamation of the region's numerous municipalities into larger clusters. That's how we'll get big picture thinking going instead of all the local-focused and petty squabbling. Regional needs and interests are thrown out the door in favour of ensuring their own municipalities keep job creation within their city and to also ensure their municipal tax revenues keep growing. It's all a petty local competition when we should be thinking regionally, and competing not against each other but rather nationally (Calgary, Toronto) and internationally.

[officedweller]

The distribution of jobs and residences to outlying town centres is a key prinicple of the Livable Region Strategic Plan (now usurped by the "Regional Growth Strategy").

i.e. it's an implementation of an academic planning principle.

Whether it works or not is questionable because it introduces so many other demand nodes that it replicates the central core and spoke design for transit to a multi-node scheme that could be harder to serve.

In the case of Surrey, however, the prinicple is to have a city core south of the Fraser to reduce demand for bridge crossings from Fraser Valley commuters

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Thanks for the info and links.

I think someone on here brought up a great analogy: that if we "spread the wealth" across the region and diffuse what should be in Downtown Vancouver, we'll end up as a region of a bunch of Saskatoons.

That was a brilliant analogy. Fact is, a strong central city enables greater economies of scale for more and better things (whether it be jobs, attractions, infrastructure, you name it) - not just for the central city itself, but for the entire region...which otherwise would not see the benefits incurred were it not for the focus on the central city.

That's why I'm greatly opposed to the idea of turning Surrey into a full-fledged second "metropolitan area" for Metro Vancouver.

Not saying there shouldn't be regional town centres though, those are fantastic and are within the medium - far short of becoming a metropolitan area.

And it's also why I'm a supporter of amalgamation of the region's numerous municipalities into larger clusters. That's how we'll get big picture thinking going instead of all the local-focused and petty squabbling. Regional needs and interests are thrown out the door in favour of ensuring their own municipalities keep job creation within their city and to also ensure their municipal tax revenues keep growing. It's all a petty local competition when we should be thinking regionally, and competing not against each other but rather nationally (Calgary, Toronto) and internationally.

I think Toronto is giving us an example of what happens when a City & surrounding suburbs are amalgamated and their politicians became a 'metro council' and 'metro mayor'. City of Toronto citizens didn't wasn't Rob Ford as mayor, but the suburbs did and had enough votes get him elected Mayor. Two years later, he's being tossed out of office for 'Conflict of Interest', which he blames on a Left-Wing Witch-hunt.

[officedweller]

I think amalgamation would just result in more de-centralization, as the outskirts population grows and have different priorities than the core.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I think Toronto is giving us an example of what happens when a City & surrounding suburbs are amalgamated and their politicians became a 'metro council' and 'metro mayor'. City of Toronto citizens didn't wasn't Rob Ford as mayor, but the suburbs did and had enough votes get him elected Mayor. Two years later, he's being tossed out of office for 'Conflict of Interest', which he blames on a Left-Wing Witch-hunt.

Opponents of amalgamation in this forum often point to Toronto as an example of how it didn't work, but there's a medium. When Toronto amalgamated, it took in every city around it at its borders. That could be called as "full amalgamation."

Whereas, to balance locality needs with regional, "partial amalgamation" of Metro Vancouver's 21 municipalities would be most ideal. 21 municipalities is a whole lot to deal with in an already tiny geographical area. Instead, turn that 21 to maybe 12. Merge Vancouver with Richmond for instance. Merge the three jurisdictions in the North Shore. Merge the Tri-Cities. Etc.

We're not talking a Toronto style amalgamation of what would be equivalent to merging all 21 municipalities in Metro Vancouver into just 1.

Before Toronto amalgamated with other cities in 1998, it had a population of just over 700,000 and an area of just under 100 sq. kms. The new Toronto that emerged out of amalgamation in 1998 was about 2.2 million across 630 sq. kms.

The population and urban area increase of "partial amalgamation" would be an arithmetic increase, not an exponential increase like Toronto. Merging Vancouver with Richmond, for instance, is far from what happened in Toronto. We're talking about bigger units, not one big unit.

I think the idea of amalgamation is polarized by some, that it's this (and has to be) some false huge scary monster.... but in reality, there exists a middle in the scale of amalgamation - a scale that is actually beneficial.