Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[nname]

Originally Posted by officedweller

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/

What the $49 million doesn't include:
- Capital project, debt interest and repayment - which is now close to 1/3 of TransLink's overall budget
- Non bus operating service - that include transit police, TL corporate, road and bridge, SkyTrain, etc, and that's close to 2/5 of operating budget
- Layover and deadheading - which is around 1/3 of total bus service

If all the above divide equally among each region, Surrey actually get $184M worth of service in return, minus whatever paid in fare.

[officedweller]

Arguably, those items are akin to overhead and would, in a fairness evaluation, be allocable to municipalities in proportion to the service levels they receive (rather than equally)

[nname]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Arguably, those items are akin to overhead and would, in a fairness evaluation, be allocable to municipalities in proportion to the service levels they receive (rather than equally)

That's actually what I meant...

49M / 0.667 / 0.6 / 0.667 = 184M

And also, I don't think Paul include some of the 500-series route. I believe most of the riders for #502 and #531 are actually from Surrey...

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

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...

Nonono, you've got this all wrong. It wasn't Glen Clark who made the change in technology choice several years ago... it was the RTP office, whose re-analysis found legitimate points about the long-term savings brought on by additional SkyTrain to bring better transit. Glen Clark just announced it (and unintentionally took the blame).

Now, if that (or Glen Clark), hadn't proceeded to make the change to a SkyTrain-type system with ART trains/LIM technology, then perhaps yes, we'd have a "rapid transit system" in the form of light rail from Douglas to UBC years ago. We'd also have less frequency on this line, slower east-west connections throughout the metro, more congestion on our roads in the long run, less people attracted to and actually riding transit, more problems to face and solve, and more money needed through such things as a more expensive PMH1 project because there'd be more congestion on Highway 1 and less people on transit...

The real reason we don't have rapid transit from Douglas to UBC today is because of a single biased consultant, who got the liberals to use his report containing illegitimate claims so that they could attack the NDP on the basis of the Millennium Line being another "fast ferries", get in power, and then cancel the second phase of the Millennium Line, consultation already well in progress, as it was pointed out by Dkaz or someone else on here.

@officedweller - the Civic Surrey article has some missing links.... EDIT: nname found them
I would be more concerned about the fact that this $144 million in contribution from property tax revenue represents taxation of a lower proportion of the region's property value than Richmond's (which has half the population), in addition to coming from a city with the "lowest taxes in Metro Vancouver". Surrey not getting its fair share? Well, by these numbers, I'm beginning to doubt that... I've been having a lot of concerns with my municipality's policies lately. See: Voony's Blog

[quobobo]

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.

Would it kill you guys to talk about this in more precise (and less emotional) terms?

Yes, an elevated Skytrain would impose costs on residents along the line. It's also (probably) cheaper to build.

If the costs to residents along Broadway are greater than the cost difference between subway and an elevated line, they should be willing to pay the difference. If not, sucks to them - the Coase theorem implies equal efficiency no matter who pays the costs, and there shouldn't be any question that Kitsilano residents are able to pay that cost more easily than the general public.

[memememe76]

Who are "they", though? There doesn't seem to widespread support for Skytrain along Broadway among local residents--at least not to the same extent as among Surrey residents. So, if "they" don't want Skytrain to begin with, I don't see forcing "them" to approve an above-ground option because it's cheaper would be particularly compelling. "They" would just respond that it'd be even cheaper not to build a line to begin with.

I personally enjoy the experience of an above-ground Skytrain ride as a passenger, but I admit that when I think of a pleasant walk in the Lower Mainland, *none* of them involve walking alongside the Skytrain. I wonder how Columbia Street would be like for pedestrians if the line between Columbia and New West was more above-ground. I do know that I would not want Broadway to look like those photos from China.

I find Broadway between MacDonald and Alma to be quite the pleasant walking experience. Could an above-ground Skytrain enhance that experience?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by memememe76

I personally enjoy the experience of an above-ground Skytrain ride as a passenger, but I admit that when I think of a pleasant walk in the Lower Mainland, *none* of them involve walking alongside the Skytrain.

Part of that may be due to the fact that not that much of the walkways beneath the Skytrain line are particularly scenic. But I do enjoy riding my bike along the paths below the guideways - the trains project very little noise directly below and the guideway routing provides a direct, traffic-separated and fairly flat cycling experience. I'm particularly pleased with the section of the Central Valley Greenway between Nanaimo Street in Vancouver east into Burnaby because until that was constructed it was actually quite difficult to find a cycling decent route from Vancouver to places like the Home Depot or the Costco near Willingdon.

The Canada Line Bridge is another terrific route, and the trains do nothing to detract from the experience IMHO.

[Spork]

Re: Elevated

1) Broadway - Not enough space if you wish to keep 2 lanes of traffic each direction and parking on either side. Get rid of one and there is space.
2) Alleyway - Expropriation is required. At approximately 8 houses per block, there are 7 blocks between Main and Cambie. That is 56 houses, at $500k-$1m each for expropriation + demolition. $28-$56m per kilometer additional cost for elevated in the alleyway behind Broadway. The only remaining questions are (a) whether or not the government would be creating nuisance among the buildings backing that alleyway and would be liable for soundproofing, and (b) what would happen at the stretch between Hemlock and Pine.

The rest is just emotion around what is aesthetically pleasing, and whether or not there would be political willpower to push it through the inevitable NIMBYs.

Thoughts?

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by memememe76

Who are "they", though? There doesn't seem to widespread support for Skytrain along Broadway among local residents--at least not to the same extent as among Surrey residents. So, if "they" don't want Skytrain to begin with, I don't see forcing "them" to approve an above-ground option because it's cheaper would be particularly compelling. "They" would just respond that it'd be even cheaper not to build a line to begin with.

Ignoring the benefits to people outside the neighbourhood (or the many students in Kits) is not a great starting place for policy analysis.

[xd_1771]

In Richmond, the issue of whether to vouch for an at-grade line or grade-separated line between Bridgeport and Brighosue was very divided - especially when it came to visual impact. There were many people concerned with the visual impacts of the guideway, but there were also many people who LIKED it and found that it had more of a big city look. And, these people were shown conceptual images of the SkyTrain guideway being in the middle of No. 3 road, not off to the side as it currently is. The guideway also seemed somewhat higher in the concepts than it currently is. REPORT LINK

[Steveston]

Elevated, at grade, or subway, the absolute requirement is that the system does what it is designed to do -- i.e move people efficiently, and divert people out of their cars.

The Richmond decision came down to at grade vs. elevated (subway doesn't work in Richmond). At grade would have eliminated an automated system (except in short stints, at grade & SkyTrain doesn't work), which would have meant lower capacity, slower LRT technology, which wouldn't have been able to handle the Olympic traffic, nor the current (above projection) ridership.

Yes, aesthetics should enter into the equation, but if it causes you to choose the wrong system, then it should be given less weight in the decision making criteria. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in today if LRT was the chosen technology for all three current lines?

[xd_1771]

Yeah, my point with quoting the Richmond survey is that there will always be division on the styles for certain reasons and personal preferences and while I'm not suggesting that those be ignored entirely, the main objective should be that what needs to be done is done. Canada Line was built with an objective of enabling reliable travel time of exactly 25 minutes or less from Richmond to Vancouver - alongside capacity expectations (now exceeded) and reliability expectations (excellent as always with automated train operation).

In terms of Broadway, I do not see an elevated SkyTrain line working for the most part, because it would result in the same hurdles that would be faced with at-grade LRT (the moment you remove even a single lane on Broadway, the whole system flips over and you have the option of reducing to one through lane in each direction [perhaps with regular turning lanes, but that would have to be it] or removing parking lanes entirely. Both have bads - the former (completely reducing road capacity) impacts the reliability of the #9 trolley, and the latter of course has other impacts and will make right turns and the #9 tougher still).

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by memememe76

Who are "they", though? There doesn't seem to widespread support for Skytrain along Broadway among local residents--at least not to the same extent as among Surrey residents. So, if "they" don't want Skytrain to begin with, I don't see forcing "them" to approve an above-ground option because it's cheaper would be particularly compelling. "They" would just respond that it'd be even cheaper not to build a line to begin with.

I personally enjoy the experience of an above-ground Skytrain ride as a passenger, but I admit that when I think of a pleasant walk in the Lower Mainland, *none* of them involve walking alongside the Skytrain. I wonder how Columbia Street would be like for pedestrians if the line between Columbia and New West was more above-ground. I do know that I would not want Broadway to look like those photos from China.

I find Broadway between MacDonald and Alma to be quite the pleasant walking experience. Could an above-ground Skytrain enhance that experience?

The cost of elevated construction could be closely estimated based on the Evergreen Line guideways that are going to be run up North Road. Granted, there were fewer properties to expropriate there, but North Road still needed to be widened to make room for the pillars between the NB and SB traffic.

The elevated guideways on Terminal were simple to do because it was easy to 'shove over' the traffic lanes to make room for the elevated guideway pillars.

Widening Broadway to build the same kind of elevated guideways and keep the 6 traffic lanes (plus the occasional left-turn lanes) would mean expropriating a strip of properties from Fraser to Blanca. That ain't gonna happen, regardless if you put the elevated elevated guideways down an alley beside Broadway or down the middle of Broadway.

The extra costs of expropriation (and extra time for the inevitable legal & political fights) would make elevated construction more expensive than even the $3+ Billion for TBM tunnels.

[xd_1771]

The extra costs of expropriation (and extra time for the inevitable legal & political fights) would make elevated construction more expensive than even the $3+ Billion for TBM tunnels.

Yeah, that sums it up.

Also, if the bored Broadway subway is built under 10th, then with a smooth ramp to the platform the access is easier than any elevated stations over Broadway.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The extra costs of expropriation (and extra time for the inevitable legal & political fights) would make elevated construction more expensive than even the $3+ Billion for TBM tunnels.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Yeah, that sums it up.Broadway.

Respectfully, this is a false dilemma.

You can eliminate one lane of parking and there's plenty of room suddenly. Less people would drive anyway if they could take Skytrain. The city eliminated parking downtown for bike lanes and the world didn't end.

Elevated Skytrain could be easily done with the same or less expropriation than a subway. A below grade option still will have properties expropriated or demolished for station entrances. Even *if* you expropriate 10 city blocks you might be looking at 500 million dollars. I could easily see twice that amount recouped using elevated construction.

It comes down to noise and visual impact primarily. Any other reasons are just distracting from that fact.

If Surrey is going to be the next downtown in 50 years, by that metric we should be tunneling in Surrey for the future, too.

There are so many compelling reasons to use elevated instead: safety, expandability, cost, maintenance costs, etc...

If Vancouver specifically wants a subway, they should be showing us the numbers for an elevated option to compare.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Respectfully, this is a false dilemma.

You can eliminate one lane of parking and there's plenty of room suddenly. Less people would drive anyway if they could take Skytrain. The city eliminated parking downtown for bike lanes and the world didn't end.

There isn't enough room if you include stations. Stations would take up at least another lane.

[nname]

Originally Posted by makr3trkr

Respectfully, this is a false dilemma.

You can eliminate one lane of parking and there's plenty of room suddenly. Less people would drive anyway if they could take Skytrain. The city eliminated parking downtown for bike lanes and the world didn't end.

Elevated Skytrain could be easily done with the same or less expropriation than a subway. A below grade option still will have properties expropriated or demolished for station entrances. Even *if* you expropriate 10 city blocks you might be looking at 500 million dollars. I could easily see twice that amount recouped using elevated construction.

What about building it at-grade? Just close down 2 traffic/parking lanes, build a few overpass/underpass on major streets and close down all others so the line would be fully grade-separated. It wouldn't matter because less people would drive anyways, and this would be even cheaper than the elevated option.

[jlousa]

Why remove a lane from Broadway at all? Which side would you remove the parking lane from? the north side or south side? Either way that would be a lot of upset businesses and a loss of parking revenue for the city.
I can only imagine that the city will present a subway line to the local businesses as part of a beautification of Broadway. With the reduced traffic along Broadway after the line opens the city could easily build out corner bulges into the parking lanes at every intersection and remove the rush hour parking restrictions. This would provide better parking options for the local businesses, more parking revenue,and provide a constant barrier for pedestrians to better enjoy Broadway. The corner bulges will also make crossing Broadway easier. All for minimal cost.
Think people are over estimating the cost of tunneling over going elevated.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by nname

What about building it at-grade? Just close down 2 traffic/parking lanes, build a few overpass/underpass on major streets and close down all others so the line would be fully grade-separated. It wouldn't matter because less people would drive anyways, and this would be even cheaper than the elevated option.

That would be the worst option off all.

[makr3trkr]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Why remove a lane from Broadway at all? Which side would you remove the parking lane from? the north side or south side? Either way that would be a lot of upset businesses and a loss of parking revenue for the city.
I can only imagine that the city will present a subway line to the local businesses as part of a beautification of Broadway. With the reduced traffic along Broadway after the line opens the city could easily build out corner bulges into the parking lanes at every intersection and remove the rush hour parking restrictions. This would provide better parking options for the local businesses, more parking revenue,and provide a constant barrier for pedestrians to better enjoy Broadway. The corner bulges will also make crossing Broadway easier. All for minimal cost.
Think people are over estimating the cost of tunneling over going elevated.

Parking was eliminated on Hornby, and yeah, a lot of businesses were upset - but we're trying to move away from an auto-centric city in general. We have city-owned parkades downtown. Even if Broadway was reduced from 6 lanes to 4 - it wouldn't be the end of the world. It's not a freeway and it never will be.

Subway may be a fine option - but the whole point of a "study" is to show pros and cons (including price) of potential options.

If elevated is impossible and expensive and a bad option, why not lay it to rest officially in the report and fairly compare it alongside all the other options on its own merits?