Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Alon]

The street is much less pleasant to walk on at rush hour when there's no parking, because then pedestrians are right next to high-speed bus traffic.

[Jebby]

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.

I'd like to see something like this that we have in Madrid done along Broadway:

[Pinion]

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???

Why are you talking about me like I am from the area? As my profile says, I'm from the north shore - a place that is criminally under-served by transit. I avoid the Broadway area as much as possible because traffic is so bad.

I support a tunnel because it makes sense. It drives me crazy reading people from Surrey moaning about their service - if anything, Surrey is spoiled. Don't live on the distant edge of the city if you want better service.

People need to go to Broadway/UBC. Very few need to go to the outskirts of town. Deal with it.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I'd like to see something like this that we have in Madrid done along Broadway:

Me too, if the political will was there after a subway one curb lane could be removed and used to create the extra pedestrian space (while still allowing for turn lanes, bus bulges etc).

[Zassk]

I agree that providing and preserving on-street parking totally contradicts the stated goal of discouraging driving. I support the removal of on-street parking to replace it with bike lanes and/or wider sidewalks. I am somewhat baffled that nobody has championed this idea, given the general direction the city has been going.

If city hall really wanted to encourage cycling, they would have already eliminated parking on a variety of major corridors that currently devote precious roadway to parking. Local businesses be damned. No single property's taxes are high enough to justify devoting 16% to 33% of the roadway to parking space for that property.

However, none of that affects my feelings about SkyTrain on Broadway. The line should still be buried (and ideally on 10th) for many reasons other than the fate of the parking lane.

[xd_1771]

The thing about cycling lanes on Broadway itself is that they would be quite redundant. There's 10th Ave, which is an east-west bikeway just one block to the south and, being a quieter residential street, also presents a safer option for east-west cycling. While cycling lanes right on these corridors could be quite redundant, having parking on these corridors can also be seen as an efficient use of space - because otherwise, where would the cars go? There would then need to be investments in ugly parking garages, with capital costs that offset parking revenue. You should also think of how this can affect carshare services, esp. those that use emissions-free cars.

Wider sidewalks could be had with partial narrowing of the curbside lane (as parking space only, it does not need to be a full width lane by any means). There are many areas on Broadway already, however, that have wide sidewalks - where I feel more width would be redundant and simply costly.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The thing about cycling lanes on Broadway itself is that they would be quite redundant. There's 10th Ave, which is an east-west bikeway just one block to the south and, being a quieter residential street, also presents a safer option for east-west cycling. While cycling lanes right on these corridors could be quite redundant, having parking on these corridors can also be seen as an efficient use of space - because otherwise, where would the cars go? There would then need to be investments in ugly parking garages, with capital costs that offset parking revenue. You should also think of how this can affect carshare services, esp. those that use emissions-free cars.

Wider sidewalks could be had with partial narrowing of the curbside lane (as parking space only, it does not need to be a full width lane by any means). There are many areas on Broadway already, however, that have wide sidewalks - where I feel more width would be redundant and simply costly.

There's also 7th and 8th just to the North which are also a cycle route.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

having parking on these corridors can also be seen as an efficient use of space - because otherwise, where would the cars go?

City hall would have you believe that they want the cars to just go away. On-street parking is effectively a quota for car ownership. If city hall is serious about converting car trips to other modes, then they have this obvious means of reducing the quota for car ownership in the city. At the same time, they would recover valuable right-of-way space to accommodate those other modes (including wider/safer sidewalks). This, to me, would be a serious action to discourage car use. None of the bike lane projects of the last decade represent serious action to discourage car use.

[Alon]

Does Vancouver require off-street parking in its zoning? A good start would be to eliminate all such requirements.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Alon

Does Vancouver require off-street parking in its zoning? A good start would be to eliminate all such requirements.

I believe it depends on the type of zone. Certain zones do require a certain percentage of off street parking. While other types of zones require a certain percentage of on street parking.

Now over time what has happened in the downtown core is the percentage of off-street as well as on-street parking has been lowered by changed in the zones. This has been brought about as the percentage of people who travel to the downtown core that drive has slowly dropped over the years. This change in the zoning rules didn't just happen over night and didn't happen right from the beginning.

Which is why I don't think removing on-street parking from the get go would be very wise along Broadway. Right now the vehicle mode share along Broadway is much higher when compared to the downtown core. Even though the two areas are not that far apart. What is different is Broadway does not have any sort of rapid transit train to move people rapidly in and out of the corridor, while downtown does. Because transit along Broadway is pretty much bottlenecked. It has caused a lot of people who might of otherwise taken transit to drive into the Broadway Corridor. But just adding a new train won't switch people over right away. It takes time to switch people over.

In the long term though I do see less parking as a percentage of zone in Broadway, but I don't see it happening in the short term.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I believe it depends on the type of zone. Certain zones do require a certain percentage of off street parking. While other types of zones require a certain percentage of on street parking.

Now over time what has happened in the downtown core is the percentage of off-street as well as on-street parking has been lowered by changed in the zones. This has been brought about as the percentage of people who travel to the downtown core that drive has slowly dropped over the years. This change in the zoning rules didn't just happen over night and didn't happen right from the beginning.

Which is why I don't think removing on-street parking from the get go would be very wise along Broadway. Right now the vehicle mode share along Broadway is much higher when compared to the downtown core. Even though the two areas are not that far apart. What is different is Broadway does not have any sort of rapid transit train to move people rapidly in and out of the corridor, while downtown does. Because transit along Broadway is pretty much bottlenecked. It has caused a lot of people who might of otherwise taken transit to drive into the Broadway Corridor. But just adding a new train won't switch people over right away. It takes time to switch people over.

In the long term though I do see less parking as a percentage of zone in Broadway, but I don't see it happening in the short term.

Very good post.

I think that removing on-street parking should be done gradually along Broadway. Step 1 is obviously rapid transit. I think along with that we could see bulges on corners that take up at least one or two spots, as well as bulges at bus stops. Then over time as the corridor densifies further and more off-street parking is built as well as the increase in transit share continues we can remove more and more on street parking.

[xd_1771]

Restricting road capacity even by 1 lane on a Vancouver 6-lane road can have implications on road safety, bus travel times, those who benefit from car-sharing (including emissions-free car-sharing), and general productivity. Restricting on-street parking capacity can and does impact businesses, parking revenue, and amount of off-street parking facilities built and maintained.

I would like to suggest that the reason parking facilities have been reduced downtown is because there are statistics showing that the amount of car trips into downtown went down by 20% between 1996 and 2006 in spite of population and job growth. Downtown can have reduced parking because there is simply no need for all that parking. That does not mean that the same action would not have been taken if there wasn't such a reduction in car trips. Perhaps parking prices could have risen, but you simply can't take away parking capacity without notice overnight as an attempt to reduce auto use. How did Vancouver get car mode share and trip count down like that then? Simple: by giving people GOOD CHOICES. The Millennium Line SkyTrain expansion and Mk II introduction, the introduction of the B-Lines, the modernization of the bus fleet.... those are all contributors to this.

If you try to restrict without giving good alternatives in return, people aren't going to instantly get out of their cars. They're going to go up in flames and protest and maybe vote against people who would otherwise make good decisions - because what you end up doing is affecting jobs and job options, harming productivity, voter satisfaction, and confidence in government to service needs. In Calgary, confidence in the municipal government and their encourage-park-n-ride model of transportation demand management is slowly declining, because of reliability issues on their C-Trains.

On-street parking doesn't create or define car ownership - it is a response to car ownership. Car ownership (or trip count, whichever applies better) defines the amount of parking. That's why downtown can have parking reductions.

Going back to the idea of bike lanes on Broadway... it is unlikely that they will see much use, because alternate routes on streets far less busy and far better to ride bikes on are one to two blocks away in either direction. I don't think that would be a worthwhile use of municipal funds. It's like having bike lanes at all on No. 3 road in Richmond when the exceptionally wide sidewalk under the SkyTrain guideway is a multi-use path open to bikes... same with 156 St at the Highway 1 overpass in Surrey.

--------

Now, a comment on this "war on the car" mentality here. The war on a car can be a very legitimate concern if auto use growth rate in a particular area is really high, but in other cases I think that some people really need to get out of this battle. It's largely impractical, and becoming even less practical as cars are moving towards becoming a low-emissions or emissions free technology. We even have car share systems that are emissions-free. Cars can be a part of our world without the harmful effects. What we really need is a balance. Competitive transit should definitely prioritized to promote urban and healthy lifestyle choices, but that doesn't mean make efforts to eliminate the car for its legitimate uses in certain occasions.

[Hourglass]

^^

The other observation is that measures to reduce car usage only work in conjunction with good transit / transport alternatives.

Slight sidebar but related to this issue. I lived in Vienna (Austria) for a couple of years (population roughly the same size as Metro Vancouver). Now THAT is a city that philosophically is anti-car. But when you consider the transit alternatives, it didn't really matter. And this is reflected in transit usage (daily ridership on Vienna's U-bahn is around 1.3 million, not including trams or buses).

[DKaz]

Eliminating on street parking is never a good idea. Think of the commercial vehicles that will require it - couriers and delivery trucks, contractors, consultants. Continue to restrict it during rush hour. The main goal of transit is to reduce the number of drivers who can otherwise take transit so that we free up capacity for those who do need to drive.

That said, at most I think we can eliminate one westbound lane of traffic and restrict parking during AM and PM commutes, and maintain three eastbound lanes of traffic and restrict parking during the PM commute. Give a couple of feet on each side to the widen the sidewalks with nice landscaping and widen the curb lanes on each side to accommodate cyclists.

[crazytown]

Why not make the HOV lanes during rush hour - BUS ONLY lanes? Would that not help in the short term until ALRT is built?

[DKaz]

That's what they have right now. Bus only lanes during rush hour.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'm pretty sure trips into downtown by car correlate strongest to increases in costs of operating a car and parking. In my company's building the cost is $24.50/day.

The giant rise in parking taxes with HST and ever climbing gas costs have definitely made a dent in how much I'd be willing to take my car downtown, even when it's the only convenient method.

Car lifetime costs however have peaked and can only go downhill. Given a 10 year life span, I've figured out that a $40K electric car is about on par with a $20K gas car as far as lifetime costs go in BC. As is, the EV's I've compared are way better outfitted than their gas cousins.

The EV costs will definitely come down as the R&D costs are sunk and parts are produced in batches of millions instead of thousands. Maintenance costs will continue to drop, range will get better and the cars themselves will get cheaper. Chances are, things will also start driving themselves in the next decade or two, vastly increasing the accessibility and safety of cars.

I'd be surprised if the trend of driven km doesn't reverse and go back up in BC given the low cost of power. Permanently changing infrastructure until the effects of new macro trends are understood is a generally bad idea. Underground development however leaves us with a clean slate.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Going back to the idea of bike lanes on Broadway... it is unlikely that they will see much use, because alternate routes on streets far less busy and far better to ride bikes on are one to two blocks away in either direction.

Speaking as a cyclist, I disagree. If Broadway had a physically separated bike lane I'd choose to ride on it rather than sharing 10th Ave. with cars. I'd prefer the security of a dedicated lane and the convenience of being able to ride directly to my destinations on Broadway. Just last week I rode to three different stores on Broadway and a dedicated lane would have been terrific, saving me from having to dogleg to and from 10th Ave. each time.

Now having said that, I'm not necessarily saying I think we should spend the money on such a dedicated bike lane. 10th Ave is actually a pretty nice cycling route (except for the hospital district between Cambie and Oak, which is too narrow for the amount of vehicle traffic for my taste). I'm just sayin' that if there was a dedicated lane on Broadway, I'd use it.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm pretty sure trips into downtown by car correlate strongest to increases in costs of operating a car and parking. In my company's building the cost is $24.50/day.

Car lifetime costs however have peaked and can only go downhill. Given a 10 year life span, I've figured out that a $40K electric car is about on par with a $20K gas car as far as lifetime costs go in BC. As is, the EV's I've compared are way better outfitted than their gas cousins.

My understanding is that with the decline in car trips over the past few years parkades have been lowering their rates in an attempt to attract customers. So presumably they were higher a few years ago. Yet car trips don't seem to be increasing.

And with the cost of gas going up the cost of using an automobile won't peak until the lifetime cost of gas-operated vehicles exceeds that of electric vehicles.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Restricting road capacity even by 1 lane on a Vancouver 6-lane road can have implications on road safety, bus travel times, those who benefit from car-sharing (including emissions-free car-sharing), and general productivity. Restricting on-street parking capacity can and does impact businesses, parking revenue, and amount of off-street parking facilities built and maintained.

I would like to suggest that the reason parking facilities have been reduced downtown is because there are statistics showing that the amount of car trips into downtown went down by 20% between 1996 and 2006 in spite of population and job growth. Downtown can have reduced parking because there is simply no need for all that parking. That does not mean that the same action would not have been taken if there wasn't such a reduction in car trips. Perhaps parking prices could have risen, but you simply can't take away parking capacity without notice overnight as an attempt to reduce auto use. How did Vancouver get car mode share and trip count down like that then? Simple: by giving people GOOD CHOICES. The Millennium Line SkyTrain expansion and Mk II introduction, the introduction of the B-Lines, the modernization of the bus fleet.... those are all contributors to this.

If you try to restrict without giving good alternatives in return, people aren't going to instantly get out of their cars. They're going to go up in flames and protest and maybe vote against people who would otherwise make good decisions - because what you end up doing is affecting jobs and job options, harming productivity, voter satisfaction, and confidence in government to service needs. In Calgary, confidence in the municipal government and their encourage-park-n-ride model of transportation demand management is slowly declining, because of reliability issues on their C-Trains.

On-street parking doesn't create or define car ownership - it is a response to car ownership. Car ownership (or trip count, whichever applies better) defines the amount of parking. That's why downtown can have parking reductions.

Going back to the idea of bike lanes on Broadway... it is unlikely that they will see much use, because alternate routes on streets far less busy and far better to ride bikes on are one to two blocks away in either direction. I don't think that would be a worthwhile use of municipal funds. It's like having bike lanes at all on No. 3 road in Richmond when the exceptionally wide sidewalk under the SkyTrain guideway is a multi-use path open to bikes... same with 156 St at the Highway 1 overpass in Surrey.

--------

Now, a comment on this "war on the car" mentality here. The war on a car can be a very legitimate concern if auto use growth rate in a particular area is really high, but in other cases I think that some people really need to get out of this battle. It's largely impractical, and becoming even less practical as cars are moving towards becoming a low-emissions or emissions free technology. We even have car share systems that are emissions-free. Cars can be a part of our world without the harmful effects. What we really need is a balance. Competitive transit should definitely prioritized to promote urban and healthy lifestyle choices, but that doesn't mean make efforts to eliminate the car for its legitimate uses in certain occasions.

Being a car owner/user I would hate to be accused of advocating a war on the car but a couple of points. If following a Broadway subway one of the two curb lanes was removed for an expanded pedestrian realm this is actually a net increase in on street parking for a very significant part of the business day (they are currently bus only during rush hour). Space for turn lanes etc. could be left in. The local bus service #9 (that I assume will still run) could run much like today and on the side of the street with parking there could be bus bulges. The increased space for pedestrians should make walking along the shops on Broadway more pleasant and increase business for shop owners. Remember going Subway will temporarily free up space that was not available before (former car commuters/less buses), if it is not used to increase the pedestrian space latent trip demand by cars will just fill it up (Mary Jane will now drive to the store to get her milk at rush hour when before she waited because traffic was too bad). In other words with a subway we have a short time frame to increase the pedestrian realm without impacting vehicle congestion, if we wait cars will have used up the space freed up by the subway. Increasing the pedestrian realm after traffic has readjusted will make people think their commute is worse/more congested. If done right doing as part of the subway should leave congestion as is.