Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Most of the suburban skytrains were built before the areas were built up. It's not at all comparable. Anyone using common sense should understand why underground is the only option for Broadway (note I have no personal investment in it either way).

I'm pretty sure that Bangkok guideway was built after the surrounding buildings have already been built. Or should I show yet another photo from Manila showing how an elevated system can be built in densely packed cities...

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Most of the suburban skytrains were built before the areas were built up. It's not at all comparable. Anyone using common sense should understand why underground is the only option for Broadway (note I have no personal investment in it either way).

There are plenty of cities all over the world that are denser, busier, and more narrow than Broadway that have elevated trains.

Elevated trains don't bend the laws of physics. If we stand to save a significant amount of money (potentially hundreds of millions or even billions) why shouldn't we at least get a look at the numbers?

The only deal-breaking reason is politics and nimby-ism. Even for a subway, they will still have to expropriate property to build entries for the stations.

The fact that Skytrain is noisy and unsightly and may affect property values along frontage are valid arguments. Any other reasons are just subterfuge.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I'm pretty sure that Bangkok guideway was built after the surrounding buildings have already been built.

Bangkok is built on soft clay and is sinking into the ocean. Elevated was likely the only option.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Bangkok is built on soft clay and is sinking into the ocean. Elevated was likely the only option.

Manila is almost the same way too...but this time, elevated being the ONLY option. And here is why....and note that is NOT a river....

http://www.blogster.com/rica/images-of-typhoon-ondoy-in-manila

[Pinion]

So the argument is "third world asian cities had no other choice but to do elevated guideways, so we should destroy neighbourhoods for them too"?

Let's aim to be a better city than Manilla, eh?

Ask yourself if you would want to have a skytrain whizzing past your window in a building that wasn't built for the kind of noise it generates. It's okay to have some compassion for your fellow neighbours.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Ask yourself if you would want to have a skytrain whizzing past your window in a building that wasn't built for the kind of noise it generates. It's okay to have some compassion for your fellow neighbours.

And THIS is exactly what's wrong with the argument for a subway for Broadway! Its has little to do with bringing a grade separated rapid transit system to the corridor, its about burying a much needed transit line so you won't see it, you won't hear it, and you want everyone else in the region to pay for this luxury. Where is the compassion for Vancouver's neighbours, that is the rest of the Metro Vancouver cities that has to pay through the nose to bury the Broadway Skytrain???

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

This is ultimately what peeves me about this whole Broadway Line project, and even the Canada Line before that. The only reason why its a *subway* is because when it comes to the Westside of Vancouver, it *MUST* be buried at all costs, even if that means other parts of the region will simply not have any improvements.

You love drinking the class warfare Kool Aid, don't you? You're probably one of the people who during the Canada Line construction called people who live along Cambie 'creme de la creme.'

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

And THIS is exactly what's wrong with the argument for a subway for Broadway! Its has little to do with bringing a grade separated rapid transit system to the corridor, its about burying a much needed transit line so you won't see it, you won't hear it, and you want everyone else in the region to pay for this luxury. Where is the compassion for Vancouver's neighbours, that is the rest of the Metro Vancouver cities that has to pay through the nose to bury the Broadway Skytrain???

It's okay if people want to make the argument that Skytrain is ugly and noisy, but be honest that's why we're spending the extra hundreds of millions (or billions) - not because of any insurmountable imagined technological or corridor limitations.

Originally Posted by Jebby

You love drinking the class warfare Kool Aid, don't you? You're probably one of the people who during the Canada Line construction called people who live along Cambie 'creme de la creme.'

I can visualize a valid case for a subway on Broadway - but honestly Cambie Street could have been at least 50% or 75% elevated. If people don't like (some) noise or visual impacts they don't have to live on a major N/S corridor.

By that measure we should subway any future Skytrain in Surrey because it will be high density in 50 years.

Nor do I think Asian cities like Singapore, Taipei, or Tokyo with elevated or partially elevated trains really count as "third world."

[Hourglass]

Manila's system is definitely NOT something to aspire to for Broadway. AFAIC, MRT-3 along Edsa doesn't integrate at all into the urban fabric. It's more like a dividing wall.

Kuala Lumpur's elevated system (Skytrain technology) in the CBD is a better example of how it could be done along the Broadway corridor

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Jebby

You love drinking the class warfare Kool Aid, don't you? You're probably one of the people who during the Canada Line construction called people who live along Cambie 'creme de la creme.'

Yes, I am one of those people who call those Cambie people 'creme de la creme" and I'm proud of it!

But no, this isn't about class warfare, but rather the sheer regional unfairness when it comes to rapid transit expansion. We've seen it with Canada Line vs Evergreen in 2004, and we're seeing it AGAIN with Broadway Line vs Surrey LRT almost ten years later.

History repeats itself, and lessons are still not learned.

The irony is, if Glen Clark didn't change the Millenium Line from conventional LRT to Skytrain, we'd have a rapid transit system from Douglas College in Coquitlam to UBC years ago...

Originally Posted by Hourglass

Kuala Lumpur's elevated system (Skytrain technology) in the CBD is a better example of how it could be done along the Broadway corridor

Hey I'm all for the Kuala Lumpur system! Lets do it!!!

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

It's okay if people want to make the argument that Skytrain is ugly and noisy, but be honest that's why we're spending the extra hundreds of millions (or billions) - not because of any insurmountable imagined technological or corridor limitations.

I agree, I think if the proponents of the Broadway subway, including the politicians of all levels and parties, public supporters, and even people in this forum, would simply admit this, its easier to look at things more objectively.

We may not agree to it, but at least we know the *true* reason why, instead of hiding behind these so called *studies* and whatever else justification is being presented. So when its decision time to allocate the funding, the correct decisions are ultimately made.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Surrey, who 1) pays a lot more than what it gets from Translink

You've posted this claim a couple of times in the past two weeks, but this has been discussed before in this forum. The Vancouver bus routes get 5x the usage that those in Surrey do, but they do not get 5x the service. Surrey transit is actually subsidized by the rest of the region, regardless of what Watts may claim. It follows that if SoF was to break away from Translink, 1) Translink's balance sheet would improve and 2) SoF transit would get worse and cost more to its residents.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Zassk

You've posted this claim a couple of times in the past two weeks, but this has been discussed before in this forum. The Vancouver bus routes get 5x the usage that those in Surrey do, but they do not get 5x the service. Surrey transit is actually subsidized by the rest of the region, regardless of what Watts may claim. It follows that if SoF was to break away from Translink, 1) Translink's balance sheet would improve and 2) SoF transit would get worse and cost more to its residents.

Then I guess you don't have an issue if Vancouver pays for a HUGE majority of the Broadway Line. The region should still chip in, but perhaps at most, around the same contributions that they did with Canada and Evergreen Lines? Maximum $400 million? Feds and Province do the same, or close to it, so total of 1.4 billion? Rest is from the CoV and UBC? Fair enough?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Then I guess you don't have an issue if Vancouver pays for a HUGE majority of the Broadway Line. The region should still chip in, but perhaps at most, around the same contributions that they did with Canada and Evergreen Lines? Maximum $400 million? Feds and Province do the same, or close to it, so total of 1.4 billion? Rest is from the CoV and UBC? Fair enough?

Vancouver will pay for the majority of the line. Vancouver has the largest population of the region, the most jobs (and the highest paying ones). Vancouver pays way more in taxes than any other municipality and contributes the most to TransLink's revenues.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Vancouver will pay for the majority of the line. Vancouver has the largest population of the region, the most jobs (and the highest paying ones). Vancouver pays way more in taxes than any other municipality and contributes the most to TransLink's revenues.

Majority of the Regional Taxpayers do NOT live in the City of Vancouver. Majority do not pay property taxes, gas taxes and whatever other taxes Translink collects within the confides of the City of Vancouver. The population of Metro Vancouver is 2.4 million as of 2012 so unless the City of Vancouver had over 1.2 million people living there, it DOES NOT constitute a majority

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

It's politically impossible.

Well yes and no

If you get a group of politician who don't give a rats ass what the people think then it could get built. But those politicians would probably not win the next election.

[simonfiction]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Majority of the Regional Taxpayers do NOT live in the City of Vancouver. Majority do not pay property taxes, gas taxes and whatever other taxes Translink collects within the confides of the City of Vancouver. The population of Metro Vancouver is 2.4 million as of 2012 so unless the City of Vancouver had over 1.2 million people living there, it DOES NOT constitute a majority

Vancouver city has the greatest percentage of the population out of all of the cities in Metro Vancouver. It's also the densist. I'm going to take a guess that that equates to the greatest percentage of money in, and the least spent per person.

Not sure how you're deducing regional unfairness?

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Majority of the Regional Taxpayers do NOT live in the City of Vancouver. Majority do not pay property taxes, gas taxes and whatever other taxes Translink collects within the confides of the City of Vancouver. The population of Metro Vancouver is 2.4 million as of 2012 so unless the City of Vancouver had over 1.2 million people living there, it DOES NOT constitute a majority

I'm not 100% positive. But I do believe those that live out in Langley and Surrey and Maple Ridge do pay property taxes that go towards Translinks as well.

Now those that live in Mission/Abby and east do not pay.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by simonfiction

Vancouver city has the greatest percentage of the population out of all of the cities in Metro Vancouver. It's also the densist. I'm going to take a guess that that equates to the greatest percentage of money in, and the least spent per person.

Not sure how you're deducing regional unfairness?

Paul Hillsdon notes that Surrey sends $144 million to TransLink each year and gets $49 million worth of service in return.
The rest (2/3 of its contribution) pays for transit in other areas (i.e. Vancouver).

http://www.civicsurrey.com/2012/06/14/ex...wo-thirds-of-transit-money-to-vancouver/

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Then I guess you don't have an issue if Vancouver pays for a HUGE majority of the Broadway Line. The region should still chip in, but perhaps at most, around the same contributions that they did with Canada and Evergreen Lines? Maximum $400 million? Feds and Province do the same, or close to it, so total of 1.4 billion? Rest is from the CoV and UBC? Fair enough?

Problem with that train of thought. Is that there are people who live outside of the City of Vancouver that use transit along Broadway. And I would even hazard a guess that there are probably more people that live outside of the City of Vancouver that use transit along Broadway.

This whole mentality of well I never use it and the people around me will never use it. Leads us down a hole where all we do is complain about paying for things. Most people living in the City of Vancouver would probably never use the new rapid bus along Hwy #1. But you don't see them complaining about having to help pay for it.


In my gut though after all the squabling that will go on. I'm about 99% positive that skytrain will be extended under ground to Cambie. I'm 70-80% sure it will go to Arbutus and about 50-60% sure it will go to UBC.