Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[usog]

Correct me if I'm wrong but UEL pays taxes directly to the provincial government yes? Does Translink see any of this?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by nname

^ Using a single, large-diameter bore tunnel would result in a much deeper tunnel and stations.

I didn't know this. My thought was that a single tunnel would have advantages over using a single TBM to do two tunnels or two TBMs operating in tandem.

[Zassk]

UBC is, already, a model of high-density ToD, the likes of which exists in very few places in the region. To anyone who suggests otherwise, I suggest visiting sometime to enlighten yourself. (For bonus education, take the B-line!)

The amount, and density, of residents and employment at UBC is something we could only wish would appear in the future decades in places like SoF. UBC is far more than a few Langaras or SFU's squished together.

The level of investment and expansion at UBC, even in the absence of rapid transit, is a model for the rest of the region. I don't agree with some of the land-use decisions they have made out there, but one cannot deny the scale of it.

It is appropriate to think of UBC as being a major high-density suburb west of Vancouver, one that has taken all of the right steps to be considered a top priority for rapid transit.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Echowinds

You build the Broadway line mainly to serve the 2nd most important employment centre after the downtown core. Building it to UBC is just something that should be done for efficiency, since you're going to eventually build it anyways and it's cheaper in the long run to build it in one go. While connecting it to UBC is not the most critical thing for the region, it is still a growing area and one of the more crucial institution in BC. It also has quite an economic impact for the region. I also don't see the constant harping that UBC students are not deserving of faster transit times just like everyone else, especially considering UBC students that use transit comes from all across the metro. Building a line to Langley, for instance, will only mainly benefit Surrey and Langley residents, but a line to UBC and Broadway will benefit nearly everyone, even if the main beneficiary is still Vancouver. The no-brainer line should the fund be available, really.

Public safety is all well and good, but in general draw a line somewhere because there's always areas to improve in this department. Balance must be found in maintaining the current infrastructure and building new pieces to accommodate the expanding population. A larger earthquake will demolish other bridges like the Oak just as much as it would the Patullo, so should we go out of the way to rebuild every bridge in the name of safety? The Patullo is even less of a national concern considering it's really just a local bridge intended for local traffic, and there are alternatives in the area, including a bridge we just spent billions on. Patullo definitely needs to be rebuilt in the near future, but I don't really consider it any more of a national concern compared to the Broadway line.

And really, Robertson is doing the right thing to promote the most pressing infrastructural need for his city right now.

A line to UBC or even along Broadway doesn't really have an economic impact honestly. There's a lot of talk but the business is there already, it is moving in over time already, and people already have service there. Will it grow more quickly with a new line? Sure probably will. But economy wise, a SkyTrain subway out to UBC won't 1) move goods any faster or 2) increase infrustructure safety in the region.

It is mainly a convenience system.

If we look at the Fed money allocated for 2014 to the Montreal region, it is all for replacing aging bridges that are dangerous and in major need for replacement. It isn't to build more transit or new subway lines to move passengers around more efficiently.

I think the same will apply here in BC when we start to see money. It will go to replacing things like the Massey Tunnel and Patullo Bridge, for replacing the train bridge crossing over the Fraser, and for rail line work. I would be surprised if we see any of the money put towards public transit.

The federal government expects the Provinces to be the point people for public transit initiatives so they wouldn't spear head money on their own. We may still get federal money outside of this program to help with Broadway or Surrey extensions, but again those have to be started by the Province and the Mayor's Council and I'm sure the federal government shares many citizen's opinions that both the Province and Mayors need to fix Translink first and their own funding issues before they cry for more federal money.

Just my opinion though. But let's not live in a fantasy world that the Broadway line is some major economic driver. It isn't.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Zassk

UBC is, already, a model of high-density ToD, the likes of which exists in very few places in the region. To anyone who suggests otherwise, I suggest visiting sometime to enlighten yourself. (For bonus education, take the B-line!)

The amount, and density, of residents and employment at UBC is something we could only wish would appear in the future decades in places like SoF. UBC is far more than a few Langaras or SFU's squished together.

The level of investment and expansion at UBC, even in the absence of rapid transit, is a model for the rest of the region. I don't agree with some of the land-use decisions they have made out there, but one cannot deny the scale of it.

It is appropriate to think of UBC as being a major high-density suburb west of Vancouver, one that has taken all of the right steps to be considered a top priority for rapid transit.

You are correct in the fact that UBC is a major economic hub itself, but it isn't the end all be all. For example, according to UBC themselves, they have a $10 billion economic impact on the region.

That compares to $20.3 billion economic impact for Port Metro Vancouver and YVR at $11.7 billion.

So it is definately up there from an economy standpoint and deserving of infrastructure investment but it isn't the end all be all like some people on these forums like to tout. Statistics wise, UBC employes less people that Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, North Van, New West, Coquitlam, Langley, Delta, Richmond, Burnaby, and Vancouver. All those areas employ more people, the top 5 of which employ 10 times the amount of people or more.

For the size of the area though it definately packs a lot of punch like like YVR which employs more people that UBC does but fits on a small little island. Areas like Tilbury Island, Annacis, Port Kells, Tri-Cities, etc. all actually drive more to the economy than UBC and fit in about the same spot so it becomes difficult to decide where limited money will end up going.

That said, I don't think adding a new SkyTrain line to UBC would make a huge impact. I mean it isn't like a new SkyTrain line would suddenly make UBC go from $10 billion in economic impact to $20 billion or something. And I think without it there would still be growth. That's why the feds across the country I think we'll find them funding projects like bridge replacements and that style of transportation infrastructure instead of transit lines which only really affect people and convenience. You can't move containers for example on a new SkyTrain or LRT line.

Take Robert's Bank corridor for example. They are wanting to increase train traffic but haven't been able to due to all the at-grade crossings. So a lot of investment has been made to build overpasses over the line in areas like Langley, Surrey, and Delta. This will enable them to double and tripple train frequencies which will have a major economic impact regionally for far less money invested ($310 million roughly for 9 projects) than a multi-billion$ transit line.

UBC still needs to get done, but I don't think that's what the federal government is looking at tackling with its investment initiative. I would be surprised if when we get money thrown our way it isn't in the form of replacing things like rail bridges, the Patullo, the Massey Tunnel, widening of highways in the interior, dealing with the rail corridor between Prince Rupert and Edmonton/Interior etc.

We always seem to focus on Metro Vancouver and those living in Vancouver focus right down to Broadway and think these are the economic drivers in all of BC when they aren't. The mining sector is $10 billion to BC's economy, the forestry industry is up there too. There are many other ares that are equal or greater than UBC in the context of BC and the Canadian Economy. Heck even hunting in BC which is something many people in Metro-Vancouver stick their noses up at generates over $350million in economic activity in BC. Yes well under UBC, but it has an impact as with tourism and a lot of other industries that add up pretty quick and make you realize that UBC only technically impacts 4.6% of BC's overall economy.

4.6%.

It deserves discussion, but I would bet money it won't get any of the funding in the end same with Surrey's LRT plans, and an SFU gondola.

[Millennium2002]

You do realize that the same argument can be applied by others to anywhere else in the region that might want to launch a request for rapid transit (Surrey and Victoria in particular).

In any case, given the level of disagreement, it's hard to say what Vancouver will do in a lifetime. Under your vision, maybe it'll just become a mess of short-term band-aid road fixes, just like how the US tends to do things...

[logan5]

Originally Posted by nname

My idea would be twin-bore or cut-and-cover under 10th, east of Arbutus. At-grade in the centre median between Blanca and Allison with a pedestrian overpass at Acadia plus a pedestrian+vehicular overpass at golf course entrance. Elevated west of Allison with elevated or at-grade UBC station. Between Arbutus and Blanca.. I don't know.. whatever that works I guess?

I've heard a few times that it would be underground through the golf course. I hope that's not the case. If the line was at grade through this section, it would have a lower profile and save some money, but wouldn't that then cause problems for the eventual high density redevelopment of the golf course?

The last leg at the starting at the golf course is 2.5 km's long. There should be some significant cost savings by going elevated (if its true that the plan is subway all the way). If the elevated line is off to one side enough that some retail and maybe some other types of spaces were in the area underneath the tracks, the blighting nature of a massive elevated rapid transit line would be eliminated. There would still be some noise, but that could easily be reduced.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by nname

^ Using a single, large-diameter bore tunnel would result in a much deeper tunnel and stations. It is advantageous for Evergreen Line as it is going through a mountain (ie. deep tunnel) and there is no station so no excavation except the portal. This is not the case for Broadway.

My idea would be twin-bore or cut-and-cover under 10th, east of Arbutus. At-grade in the centre median between Blanca and Allison with a pedestrian overpass at Acadia plus a pedestrian+vehicular overpass at golf course entrance. Elevated west of Allison with elevated or at-grade UBC station. Between Arbutus and Blanca.. I don't know.. whatever that works I guess?

..................
This is exactly why TransLink or the former BC Transit have almost all East-West Vancouver routes terminate at UBC. It is a strong trip-generator that will highly increase productivity of the route. Most of the bus routes in the region are connected to strong trip-generator at one or both ends - either downtown, a town centre, or a SkyTrain station. Bus routes that lack this on one or both ends are weak-performing by nature. This was stated in their service optimization documents.

and ...........

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I think we're quickly approaching a place where we agree to disagree regarding whether rapid transit should be extended beyond central Broadway to UBC.

>>(except that, in this case, twin-tunnelling is perhaps better), yes! .....

The assertion that university students no longer need to travel to campus strikes me naive, and the mindset that UBC is purely a classroom is a generation out of date. UBC is a major employment node in the region, it is an increasingly significant population node with plans on the books to more than triple the number of residents in the coming couple decades, and it is one of the largest and most predictable trip generators in the region. Whether it is sheer ridership numbers that the SkyTrain extension will carry from opening day, congestion alleviation across the region created by UBC and Central Broadway travellers choosing to begin using transit over private automobiles, or simply the network effect having a positive increase on the overall transit system and generating greater ridership and improved farebox revenues; there are numerous compelling reasons why the missing western half of the Burrard Peninsula east-west rapid transit mainline should be built. The cost of construction will be substantial - nobody has ever argued otherwise - but the ridership and financial outlook for a rapid transit line will never look better in this region, or arguably in the country, and if the ridership and operating cost upside of putting rapid transit there cannot outweigh the hurdle of finding the money, then I think we are quite simply done building real rapid transit in this region for the foreseeable future.

I think these two above posts say it all, succinctly, and precisely. Dithering around with half-way measures is only going to delay, and increase the ultimate cost, of this VITAL project .....(boy, this thread is starting to catch fire .... anyone got smoke coming out of your computers?)

[gkz]

We can continue to "blah blah blah blah", or we can look at the report: http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...tudy_alternatives_analysis_findings.ashx

Originally Posted by Report page 8

PHASING
The analysis has considered fully-built alternatives connecting
Commercial Drive and UBC and has not assessed phasing
options in detail. Phasing would spread out the capital
requirements over a longer period of time, but potentially add
some incremental costs. Both Combination 1 and RRT could
be built in phases through, for example, extending SkyTrain to
Arbutus as an interim step towards extending rapid transit to
UBC. Implementation of rapid transit to UBC would be delayed
and this could result in ongoing crowding in the western
segment of the corridor and would require a commitment to
increased bus service to meet demand. This would create local
impacts associated with continued reliance on buses, such
as the requirement for a major interchange with bus layover
space at Arbutus. Consideration of phasing warrants further
review through the Regional Transportation Strategy in the
context of affordability

Yes, phasing it is going to cost more. Not only in terms of doing things twice, but having to build and maintain a new bus interchange at Arbutus (or the RRT ends). If it will be worth phasing comes down to what the specific funding situation will be.

[officedweller]

The Arbutus RoW would make for a relatively easily-constructed bus loop at Arbutus.

[gkz]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Arbutus RoW would make for a relatively easily-constructed bus loop at Arbutus.

I don't know. Keep in mind the bus frequency required to keep up with the constant unloading from the RRT, and the fact that many routes will be rerouted to go to the station. I don't think it will have a small footprint.

This is what we have now:

[SFUVancouver]

^ That's a lot of mid-rise apartment and office buildings, and what's not visible is the dense mid-rise Arbutus Lands development on the O'Keefe brewery lands, plus the mid-rise, mixed-use streetwall district that's well on its way south to King Edward on Arbutus.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ That's a lot of mid-rise apartment and office buildings, and what's not visible is the dense mid-rise Arbutus Lands development on the O'Keefe brewery lands, plus the mid-rise, mixed-use streetwall district that's well on its way south to King Edward on Arbutus.

Will be a busy, major rrt station in any case. I think a substantial bus feeder service is obvious for Arbutus Sation, but Alma might be busy (although perhaps less so), too. In either case, feeder service could iclude major bus routes, and / or local "mini-bus" service for adjacent districts, such as here in Paris.


http://www.gilles-alayrac.fr/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/mini-bus.jpg




http://www.annicklepetit.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/181.jpg

This is a "bus de quartier," (neighbourhood bus), smaller but more frequent than many other longer routes using full-sized vehicles.
The street patterns are different here, of course, but one gets the idea of
a service geared to its neighbourhood, usually feeding into a Métro station.

Perhaps worth considering as an adjunct in Vancouver, density and ridership warranted, of course, and adapted to our own urban geography.

[gkz]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

^ That's a lot of mid-rise apartment and office buildings, and what's not visible is the dense mid-rise Arbutus Lands development on the O'Keefe brewery lands, plus the mid-rise, mixed-use streetwall district that's well on its way south to King Edward on Arbutus.

Yes. My point is however, if the Broadway Line is phased in (not going to UBC all at once), a rather large bus loop will need to be placed adjacent to the terminating station. Where would the terminating station be placed? Could the bus loop required fit next to it? What would be the costs?

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

This is a "bus de quartier," (neighbourhood bus), smaller but more frequent than many other longer routes using full-sized vehicles.

Perhaps worth considering as an adjunct in Vancouver, density and ridership warranted, of course, and adapted to our own urban geography.

It's like a shuttle, for communities. A Community Shuttle perhaps. That Mini bus looks like it carries about the same as a community shuttle here.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

You do realize that the same argument can be applied by others to anywhere else in the region that might want to launch a request for rapid transit (Surrey and Victoria in particular).

In any case, given the level of disagreement, it's hard to say what Vancouver will do in a lifetime. Under your vision, maybe it'll just become a mess of short-term band-aid road fixes, just like how the US tends to do things...

Nothing to do with what I actually said unfortunately. I was basically expressing my opinion that the federal government's program is meant for Canada specific infrastructure and they have demonstrated time and time again that this is limited to what they deem "major infrastructure" aka bridges, major goods corridors, railways, shipping, and airports.

To my knowledge they have rarely spear-headed a program that addressed transit specifically especially when they use the terms "of national importance." And even in their first round aka mainly Montreal, it is all basically bridges. They've also said in passing several times that they felt there were issues with our major crossings and more specifically the aging rail bridge between Surrey and New Westminster.

That doesn't mean I think we'll never get federal funding? It just has to be spear-headed by the Province and or local authorities. That's partly why several articles said Surrey had the greatest chance as it was willing to front a huge amount of the costs itself whereas nobody seems to want to pay for Broadway and other transit oriented infrastructure.

Will Vancouver front money? Probably not. Will the Province? Well they point at the other cities. Will other cities? Well they point at the Province. In one giant circle. And the feds will just sit back and point then say "get your shit in order first" then fund something that is easy and cheap to get done like a rail bridge instead of a multi-billion$ transit system that has been batted around for pretty much a decade already.

Broadway is absolutely needed. My point was simply I have huge doubts the federal government will ever fund it from their program and we'll only see money if the Mayors and Province get their shit in order once and for all.

I do hope I'm wrong though. I just don't think I am.

[GMasterAres]

Why wouldn't you just go all the way to UBC? The stretch to UBC from Arbutus is the easy part actually. It's the VCC -> Arbutus that is difficult. If you get that done it would be ridiculously stupid not to just go all the way to UBC and be done with it. I still think people are crazy in thinking they won't pop the "subway" out at Arbutus or so and then elevated track it through to UBC. It's cheaper and cheap is always the way things end up getting done around here.

Some of you are just trying to shrink things down not because you think it is the right thing to do or that UBC isn't deserving, but because you know money is difficult to go by and you're hoping you can shave off some fantasy billions to suddenly make us able to afford "at least the Broadway stretch cuz you know that is more importantz!!"

At the end it will be all or nothing as I think it should be. Crazy amount of planning and work to extend SkyTrain basically 5.5km only and a line should be out to UBC just as much as along Broadway.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by gkz

I don't know. Keep in mind the bus frequency required to keep up with the constant unloading from the RRT, and the fact that many routes will be rerouted to go to the station. I don't think it will have a small footprint.

This is what we have now:

<snip image>

Still would probably be not to difficult. It doesn't look like it from the overhead but in person the old train track stretch is plenty wide to make a Granville like road for several blocks dedicated just to busses. If they just did like Granville Street near the north and 2 lane wide with bus stops, you could get quite a few busses going through that stretch and not competing with cars. It would also allow any direction to "turn around" again without impacting intersections too much.

They'd have a fight though I'd imagine from neighborhood residents and not wanting "our precious overgrown grassy train tracks to be paved over with roads for busses." but it certainly could be done. Even if it is a busy station too we're not talking 20 busses or something ridiculously high. Maybe what 5 or 6 bus lines?

I don't actually know the number pulling them out of my behind, but just looking at the overhead and having been through that area quite a bit, I don't think it is terribly difficult.

Crudely 2 way road with bus size shapes. Do that 1 way and can still fit enough busses I think.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Still would probably be not to difficult. It doesn't look like it from the overhead but in person the old train track stretch is plenty wide to make a Granville like road for several blocks dedicated just to busses.

Wouldn't the biggest problem be in wresting the land from CP? I don't understand the specifics, but I have the idea that it's not easy to expropriate land from a federally regulated company.

[jlousa]

It would be pretty well impossible to justify expropriation for a bus loop. A bus loop is hard to prove it needs to be in that exact location for the public good. Especially if CP where willing to agree to lease the land for a nice return.