Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Alon]

Originally Posted by officedweller

One factor that seems to be underplayed is the role of U-Pass on ridership demand in the UBC corridor - the discounted U-Passes are bound to impact the analysis from a cost-effectiveness / financial viability / return on investment perspective.
While not all UBC-bound passengers are students on U-Pass, a significant proportion are - and shelling out billions on lower revenue generating service (despite high ridership) may not be the preferred alternative.

You could argue it the other way, too. Students on U-Pass are already using transit; that's why UBC has such a high transit mode share. It's the employees and the faculty who aren't, because the bus 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. I ride the bus because a) I practice what I preach, b) I don't know how to drive and the bus isn't bad enough to make me want to, and c) I have very little reason to own a car for other trips. But more senior faculty members usually drive. So the extra ridership you'd be getting out of railstitution is the kind that pays full fare rather than the one that has U-Pass.

Plus, there's the Downtown/Central Broadway-bound ridership out of Point Grey and western Kits, which are perpetually neglected in these analyses even though their density is higher than that of Surrey and comparable to those of places that are considered secondary transit centers like Richmond.

It may well be that a return on investment analysis may favour phasing the line to Arbutus (serving the higher value workforce commuters of central Broadway over the discounted UBC student fares), then going to Surrey, then coming back to UBC.

i.e. Will a complete line to UBC pay for itself or create a financial deficit (because of the discounted student fares) - a deficit that could impede subsequent future expansion in Surrey (if Surrey is ranked after the UBC line)?

You might ask the same question of Surrey. According to the current state of the alternatives analysis, all rail options on Broadway are basically even on operating costs: the cheapest, SkyTrain all the way, saves $7 million a year on operating costs, i.e. trivial. But the options in Surrey are the opposite, and the more expansive rail options raise costs by ~$25 million a year, which at a discount rate of 2% is equivalent to tacking more than $1 billion extra in construction costs.

The correct phasing is UBC > Surrey, and then thinking about secondary corridors like Arbutus or Hastings or a spur from the soon-to-be-named Evergreen Line to SFU.

[Rico]

There will be no rail spur to SFU from the Evergreenline. The plan is when some money is available is for a gondola from Production way station. There is a cost benifit analysis online somewhere. Actually I think there is a thread somewhere here.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Northski

I support skytrain but the report made a pretty poor case for skytrain. Translinks reports are much better. One of the reports arguments is that skytrain will produce more affordable housing and commercial office space along Broadway. Housing and commercial office space will get more expensive with skystrain without a significant effort to streamline development approval.

But the real question is how are we going to find the money for it. e.g. what tax increase or spending cut will allow us to build it on the provincial, metro, or local level. A developer levi of 3000$/unit or job would generate 600 million over 30 years supposing 200,000 new jobs or condos were built.

The major problem I see with this is that your basically making it less economical to build units and increase density around the transit line and as a result you reduce future density and ridership. (i.e. you cant make it more expensive to live near transit without having less people live near transit) This would also go against Translink's policy of building transit in order to shape growth and it would go against the regions and cities policy of trying to increase densities near rapid transit.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Alon

You could argue it the other way, too. Students on U-Pass are already using transit; that's why UBC has such a high transit mode share. It's the employees and the faculty who aren't, because the bus 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. I ride the bus because a) I practice what I preach, b) I don't know how to drive and the bus isn't bad enough to make me want to, and c) I have very little reason to own a car for other trips. But more senior faculty members usually drive. So the extra ridership you'd be getting out of railstitution is the kind that pays full fare rather than the one that has U-Pass.

Plus, there's the Downtown/Central Broadway-bound ridership out of Point Grey and western Kits, which are perpetually neglected in these analyses even though their density is higher than that of Surrey and comparable to those of places that are considered secondary transit centers like Richmond.




You might ask the same question of Surrey. According to the current state of the alternatives analysis, all rail options on Broadway are basically even on operating costs: the cheapest, SkyTrain all the way, saves $7 million a year on operating costs, i.e. trivial. But the options in Surrey are the opposite, and the more expansive rail options raise costs by ~$25 million a year, which at a discount rate of 2% is equivalent to tacking more than $1 billion extra in construction costs.

The correct phasing is UBC > Surrey, and then thinking about secondary corridors like Arbutus or Hastings or a spur from the soon-to-be-named Evergreen Line to SFU.

Surrey already has 4 stations. Corridors up Granville South, Main St., Victoria Dr., are way busier than any Surrey corridor. At this point, the law of diminishing returns are kicking in for low density Surrey vs billion dollar transit system. Which corridors do you think are secondary?

[Jack Guevara]

Population: Vancouver has 610 thousand and Surrey has 470 thousand. Vancouver has 20 skytrain stations; Surrey has 4. I think it's clear who deserves the next transit expansion.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jack Guevara

Population: Vancouver has 610 thousand and Surrey has 470 thousand. Vancouver has 20 skytrain stations; Surrey has 4. I think it's clear who deserves the next transit expansion.

Could you maybe be more precise about which Surrey pax corridors merit RRT?

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by Jack Guevara

Population: Vancouver has 610 thousand and Surrey has 470 thousand. Vancouver has 20 skytrain stations; Surrey has 4. I think it's clear who deserves the next transit expansion.

It's clear for someone who doesn't understand population density. But we don't listen to them because they don't understand population density.

[vanman]

^That is both true and hilarious.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Jack Guevara

Population: Vancouver has 610 thousand and Surrey has 470 thousand. Vancouver has 20 skytrain stations; Surrey has 4. I think it's clear who deserves the next transit expansion.

How many transit trips are taken in/across Vancouver vs Surrey? What is the population within 500m of a Broadway Line vs a Surrey Line? How many jobs are within 500m of a Broadway Line vs a Surrey Line? How many pass-ups occur on Broadway corridor buses vs Surrey buses?

[queetz@home]

My oh my! Here comes yet more city vs suburb debates when it comes to who *deserves* the next rapid transit line. Its sad....really sad. Its like 2004 again with RAV Line vs Evergreen, I guess its the never ending Circle of Life here in Metro Vancouver...

All I'm going to say on this is I support Skytrain extension to Broadway as long as its true *SKY*train, a train high up in the sky!!! If its a subway, screw that!

In the greater scheme of things, it is Surrey's turn. After all, they are the ones that provide the fastest growth, the affordable housing to new comers, the potential for economical workspace along transit lines (something Dianne Watts's short, ugly little troll predecessor failed miserably at), and their system is far more affordable, off the shelf, and ahead of the planning process. Plus they don't get more bang for their buck when it comes to Translink contributions.

But its ultimately a city vs suburb debate here, instead of really looking at the big picture...

Oh, and wasn't the city of Vancouver able to quickly raise almost a billion to bail out a luxury condo project? Surely they can do so again to, at the very least, contribute to *some* of the ridiculously high cost of the Broadway Line. After all, those so called employment centres in Broadway....which city get the lion share on tax revenue on those...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Oh, and wasn't the city of Vancouver able to quickly raise almost a billion to bail out a luxury condo project?

No, they weren't. They basically undersigned the loan, which meant they were liable for repayment if the developer went bust. What they ended up being on the hook for was the difference been the cost of construction and the proceeds from the sales of the units (which are still ongoing). All in all, nowhere near a billion in any way shape or form.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

But its ultimately a city vs suburb debate here, instead of really looking at the big picture...

I don't think it's city vs suburb here. The network effect would be huge, as this would connect an important area to all the suburbs that have Skytrain, as opposed to a Skytrain extension into low density Surrey, which will benefit only Surrey. As well we would be linking the Canada Line with the M Line.

At that point we will have created a much more direct rapid transit route that goes from Richmond Centre to Coquitlam Centre, which I think is fairly significant as we move forward in developing our regional town centre strategy.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

My oh my! Here comes yet more city vs suburb debates when it comes to who *deserves* the next rapid transit line. Its sad....really sad. Its like 2004 again with RAV Line vs Evergreen, I guess its the never ending Circle of Life here in Metro Vancouver...

All I'm going to say on this is I support Skytrain extension to Broadway as long as its true *SKY*train, a train high up in the sky!!! If its a subway, screw that!

In the greater scheme of things, it is Surrey's turn. After all, they are the ones that provide the fastest growth, the affordable housing to new comers, the potential for economical workspace along transit lines (something Dianne Watts's short, ugly little troll predecessor failed miserably at), and their system is far more affordable, off the shelf, and ahead of the planning process. Plus they don't get more bang for their buck when it comes to Translink contributions.

But its ultimately a city vs suburb debate here, instead of really looking at the big picture...

Oh, and wasn't the city of Vancouver able to quickly raise almost a billion to bail out a luxury condo project? Surely they can do so again to, at the very least, contribute to *some* of the ridiculously high cost of the Broadway Line. After all, those so called employment centres in Broadway....which city get the lion share on tax revenue on those...

This thinking is wrong. A Broadway line will be more useful to almost everyone including a lot of Surrey users than any Surrey extensions. As a user originating in North Delta I can say a Broadway line takes me to more destinations that I want than all of the Surrey extensions put together. The same is true for people in Surrey close enough to the exsisting lines or those in the Tri-Cities, Burnaby, New West, Richmond, North/West Van. The only people who benifit more from the Surrey lines are those who live in the mid to far reaches of Surrey.
That is even before we start looking at costs, the Broadway line will save 7million per year on operating costs, the Surrey option will cost an extra $25million in operating costs per year. $25million will pay for an awful lot of extra buses each year. I would like for any investments in Rapid Transit to pay for their operating costs, or at least if we have a line that will it should go before a line that won't. Lets let them build a system with more cost benifit analysis and less 'my turn.'
That said political reality is Surrey will be next whether it makes the most sense or not.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

My oh my! Here comes yet more city vs suburb debates when it comes to who *deserves* the next rapid transit line. Its sad....really sad. Its like 2004 again with RAV Line vs Evergreen, I guess its the never ending Circle of Life here in Metro Vancouver...

All I'm going to say on this is I support Skytrain extension to Broadway as long as its true *SKY*train, a train high up in the sky!!! If its a subway, screw that!

In the greater scheme of things, it is Surrey's turn. After all, they are the ones that provide the fastest growth, the affordable housing to new comers, the potential for economical workspace along transit lines (something Dianne Watts's short, ugly little troll predecessor failed miserably at), and their system is far more affordable, off the shelf, and ahead of the planning process. Plus they don't get more bang for their buck when it comes to Translink contributions.

But its ultimately a city vs suburb debate here, instead of really looking at the big picture...

Oh, and wasn't the city of Vancouver able to quickly raise almost a billion to bail out a luxury condo project? Surely they can do so again to, at the very least, contribute to *some* of the ridiculously high cost of the Broadway Line. After all, those so called employment centres in Broadway....which city get the lion share on tax revenue on those...

Quite ironic how you talk about "the big picture" and focus only on the growth/development aspect of rapid transit.

I don't think you understand the real purpose of rapid transit.

[Alon]

Originally Posted by logan5

Surrey already has 4 stations. Corridors up Granville South, Main St., Victoria Dr., are way busier than any Surrey corridor. At this point, the law of diminishing returns are kicking in for low density Surrey vs billion dollar transit system. Which corridors do you think are secondary?

Hastings. Arbutus, partly because it has an existing right-of-way, partly because of the potential for direct West Side-Downtown service bypassing Central Broadway. 41st/49th; 41st has higher ridership, 49th has the Metrotown connection. Depending on how the lines are arranged downtown, a 1- or 2-stop extension of something to the West End. Maaaybe Commercial. Plus other suburban extensions, like farther into Richmond, or maaaybe across the Inlet to North Van if there's growth there. Nothing that should be built now, but maybe in 30 years. Basically, after Broadway and Surrey it's still useful to plan for a system for a metro area of 5 million rather than 2.5 million; Vancouver's growing.

[usog]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Quite ironic how you talk about "the big picture" and focus only on the growth/development aspect of rapid transit.

I don't think you understand the real purpose of rapid transit.

I agree with this. The question is whether the goal is depth of service,or breadth. Given a fixed lump of money, think how many more people could have new access to reliable transit through buses compared with spending it running skytrain under Broadway. Of course there's politics as well...

[officedweller]

I think that once Compass is implemented, they'll be able to get a better handle on the number of trips using U-Pass and they can calculate / estimate revenues accordingly.

On a political level - there's always a desire to equitably distribute projects built with tax revenue among the taxpaying public.

[Alon]

Originally Posted by usog

I agree with this. The question is whether the goal is depth of service,or breadth. Given a fixed lump of money, think how many more people could have new access to reliable transit through buses compared with spending it running skytrain under Broadway. Of course there's politics as well...

Don't forget the operating costs of buses.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by usog

...think how many more people could have new access to reliable transit through buses compared with spending it running skytrain under Broadway.

A Surrey resident served by a bus route that's new or has increased frequency isn't going to avail themselves of the service if they're continually passed up by the Broadway bus that they need to get to their destination.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

A Surrey resident served by a bus route that's new or has increased frequency isn't going to avail themselves of the service if they're continually passed up by the Broadway bus that they need to get to their destination.

Your arguement isn't quite correct. A Surrey resident wont be able to get on the broadway bus coming from their destination. Go to is no issue as they'd be boarding at Commercial Broadway transfering from the Expo Line.

Alas before this case can be made we need real data on the usage of the broadway corridor by SofF residents. Compass FTW