Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[bardak]

The thing that really entertains me is that almost all the comments on the article either are in support of a skytrain or have some other complaint. Only one or two of them are actually in support of lrt. On probably the most transit hostile local news site. Also the fact that he says that skytrain would have higher operating costs is laughable

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Broadway is one of those places that needs Skytrain and not LRT. it is a major transit and road connection and it will only grow and LRT, like others have said, is just an expensive bus with slightly more capacity. and we could get more capacity with buses if we had those bi-articulated ones. LRT is out of the question i think for Broadway. way too many cross streets and you cant take away 2 lanes from that road. way too much traffic and way too little parking for all the businesses. with a lack of E/W streets in Vancouver as it is you cant take even more away. with a Skytrain i would be willing to bet cars would get off the street since commute times would be so much better, i would switch for Skytrain. with LRT i know i certainly would not switch over.

if it is Skytrain versus grade-separated LRT, is grade-separated LRT really much cheaper? i don't know the facts on that so i cant really say. though i'd imagine the costs would be somewhat similar.

should it go all the way to UBC? its debatable but i think it should go all the way. get it done with so in 30 years we arent talking about "why would they stop it there?" and then have to pay more billions on top of what the full cost to UBC would be now. in the long term is it just cheaper to go all the way. we have a lack of forward thinking in the city/province and it is the reason we have so many transit/other infrastructure problems now. lack of future thinking of our former mayors/premiers. do we really want to continue this kind of thinking?

i do think UBC should pay a percentage of their parts. not 100% but they should cover some of it for sure.

*when i refer to LRT i mean surface, unless otherwise stated.

[nname]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if it is Skytrain versus grade-separated LRT, is grade-separated LRT really much cheaper? i don't know the facts on that so i cant really say. though i'd imagine the costs would be somewhat similar.

If you look at Seattle, Portland, Calgary, Toronto, etc.. Grade-separated LRT is actually more expensive due to taller tunnels and longer stations...

[logan5]

Anybody happen to know what Translink determined was the maximum headway for tram along Broadway, while maintaining signal priority? I also wonder what the maximum capacity would be. In v.1 of the UBC Line Study, LRT was at 30 km/h average speed, and Skytrain was at 39 km/h average speed, but Translink added stations for theoretical LRT, swaying the numbers even more in Skytrain's favour.

Obviously (to me) LRT is not appropriate for Broadway, but I'm not ready to completely dismiss LRT for other parts of Vancouver. The much cheaper price of LRT combined with its pretty decent average speed and high capacity make it an option that should be considered. Arbutus has an extremely valuable right of way set up, and 41st could easily be widened as it is mostly residential.

[ssiguy]

Toronto's stupid Eglinton LRT tunnel is coming in at $300 million per km..............no cost savings there. I think it should definitely be an extension of the Millenium SkyTrain line but as I have said before, I don't think it should go any further than Dunbar/Alma.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

Broadway is one of those places that needs Skytrain and not LRT. it is a major transit and road connection and it will only grow and LRT, like others have said, is just an expensive bus with slightly more capacity. and we could get more capacity with buses if we had those bi-articulated ones. LRT is out of the question i think for Broadway. way too many cross streets and you cant take away 2 lanes from that road. way too much traffic and way too little parking for all the businesses. with a lack of E/W streets in Vancouver as it is you cant take even more away. with a Skytrain i would be willing to bet cars would get off the street since commute times would be so much better, i would switch for Skytrain. with LRT i know i certainly would not switch over.

if it is Skytrain versus grade-separated LRT, is grade-separated LRT really much cheaper? i don't know the facts on that so i cant really say. though i'd imagine the costs would be somewhat similar.

should it go all the way to UBC? its debatable but i think it should go all the way. get it done with so in 30 years we arent talking about "why would they stop it there?" and then have to pay more billions on top of what the full cost to UBC would be now. in the long term is it just cheaper to go all the way. we have a lack of forward thinking in the city/province and it is the reason we have so many transit/other infrastructure problems now. lack of future thinking of our former mayors/premiers. do we really want to continue this kind of thinking?

i do think UBC should pay a percentage of their parts. not 100% but they should cover some of it for sure.

*when i refer to LRT i mean surface, unless otherwise stated.

Skytrain is essentially a grade-separated LRT. When people argue about Skytrain vs. LRT what they really mean is grade-separated vs. at-grade, myself included.

I think it should go all the way to UBC, but I think UBC should help pay for it too. UBC is the 3rd biggest employment centre in the region, and stopping it short of there would be like terminating the Expo Line at Main Street-Science World.

[Metro-One]

Skytrain is a little different due to its automation. It is LRT, but not conventional LRT.

What people are actually arguing over is Metro vs. Non metro.

Metro = grade separated

Non metro = non grade separated

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Skytrain is a little different due to its automation. It is LRT, but not conventional LRT.

What people are actually arguing over is Metro vs. Non metro.

Metro = grade separated

Non metro = non grade separated

Pinpointed!!! Thank you, METRO-ONE!

Just keep it grade-separated, that's all, and we'll all be a lot happier.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Toronto's stupid Eglinton LRT tunnel is coming in at $300 million per km..............no cost savings there.

That's because people are STUPID STUPID STUPID to argue about cost and benefits differences between LRT vs. Skytrain. The cost difference is due to grade-separated vs. at-grade. If you bore a tunnel the construction cost is all in the boring - the vehicles you run down there are negligible in terms of the overall capital cost.

That's why this whole LRT vs. Skytrain debate is so stupid. It shouldn't be about the vehicle technology, it should be about the mode - grade separated vs. at-grade. All the benefits we're attributing to "Skytrain" are really benefits of grade separation. The Canada Line should make that pretty clear, since it's not "Skytrain" technology even though that's what everyone in Vancouver tends to call it. In Vancouver "Skytrain" is really a synonym for "rapid transit", which for us means "grade separated".

[WarrenC12]

But the benefits specifically of Bombardier ALRT "Skytrain" are significant due to the investments we've already made in that technology.

Even the Canada Line could have benefited from using the same technology, and we may regret that it doesn't in the decades to come.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That's because people are STUPID STUPID STUPID to argue about cost and benefits differences between LRT vs. Skytrain. The cost difference is due to grade-separated vs. at-grade. If you bore a tunnel the construction cost is all in the boring - the vehicles you run down there are negligible in terms of the overall capital cost.

That's why this whole LRT vs. Skytrain debate is so stupid. It shouldn't be about the vehicle technology, it should be about the mode - grade separated vs. at-grade. All the benefits we're attributing to "Skytrain" are really benefits of grade separation. The Canada Line should make that pretty clear, since it's not "Skytrain" technology even though that's what everyone in Vancouver tends to call it. In Vancouver "Skytrain" is really a synonym for "rapid transit", which for us means "grade separated".

I really don't see the problem with people using them as synonyms. Everyone knows what they mean, I don't get why people keep bringing this up.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But the benefits specifically of Bombardier ALRT "Skytrain" are significant due to the investments we've already made in that technology.

Even the Canada Line could have benefited from using the same technology, and we may regret that it doesn't in the decades to come.

I already regret it!

[Genauso]

If the Canada Line were not a PPP, it probably would be Skytrain so you wouldn't need earplugs from King Ed station to Oakridge station. More frequent trains during peak periods would be a bonus as it is something worth avoiding if at all possible today (it just jams up from Georgia to Oakridge. Everything is too narrow: stairs, gates, train aisles. Go to the end of the line first if you want to get on with luggage. Even still people make a bad situation worse by trying to bring on strollers, wheelchairs, and bikes everywhere but at the center doors where there is open space on the trains)

It's great that Richmond finally caught up to Surrey's level of transit after 20 years, and it's a lot nicer to avoid airport taxis but the Canada line project wasted so much saving pennies.

[YYCguys]

Hello Everyone! I just travelled to UBC from YVR the other day and found the first part of the journey on the Canada Line to be easy and swift. The second part of the journey, however, on the bus, from the station to UBC was long. It wasn't the 99 BLine as I guess I didn't go far enough on the Canada Line to get to Broadway Station, but gosh! I sure would appreciate some sort of train, be it subway or skytrain or what have you to get one to UBC. There were lots of people on the bus!

I obviously can't read through 300 pages and 7 years of posts on this thread to get up to speed. Has there been ANY movement on this rail line: timeline, route, method, etc?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

Hello Everyone! I just travelled to UBC from YVR the other day and found the first part of the journey on the Canada Line to be easy and swift. The second part of the journey, however, on the bus, from the station to UBC was long. It wasn't the 99 BLine as I guess I didn't go far enough on the Canada Line to get to Broadway Station, but gosh! I sure would appreciate some sort of train, be it subway or skytrain or what have you to get one to UBC. There's enough traffic from what I could see!

I obviously can't read through 300 pages and 7 years of posts on this thread to get up to speed. Has there been ANY movement on this rail line: timeline, route, method, etc?

Everybody knows it's needed, but problems like funding and another area that believes that it deserves rapid transit first are slowing it down.

The overall route and method are still technically "to be decided" but it's just about a sure thing that it will be underground.

[Joat]

Assuming things go as planned, Id guess it would be completed some time between 2020 and 2025.

[YYCguys]

That long huh? Shoot!

As far as the route goes, have there been any options thrown out there yet? If so, where can one view the options on the table?

[Joat]

You can find lots of information here:

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...tudy_alternatives_analysis_findings.ashx

http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Pro...ojects/UBC-Line-Rapid-Transit-Study.aspx

The evergreen line finishes in 2016 so once that's done, hopefully, they can get right to starting on the UBC line. And I guess it would take 3-4 years?

[YYCguys]

Thanks for the info! While I like the Combo idea (branch lines each to Main Street and to VCC-Clark) I have a feeling it will end up being the RRT Subway method. Anything to get more cars (and busses) off of that corridor! And at 19 minutes via RRT, that's a quick and easy trip! Here's hoping they will start on it soon after the Evergreen Line is finished.

[SFUVancouver]

The 2008 Provincial Transit Plan called for a $2.8B rapid transit line to UBC by 2020, described as a line originating from Broadway Station. 2020 is the the same year that $3.1B in upgrades and a 6km eastern extension would be complete for the Expo Line. The described station upgrades include lengthening platforms to accept 6 car (mk2) trains. They also throw in a cool billion for addition trains. The $1.2B Evergreen Line was supposed to be up and running in 2014, according to the plan.

The Liberals have never disavowed the plan, to the best of my knowledge, but it's also progressing at a glacial pace, so the 2020 time line is an aspiration, to say the least. I would be shocked if a bored tunnel UBC Line extension of the Millennium Line/Evergreen Line from VCC-Clark Stn could be built in less than 6-7 years of actual construction, plus call it two years for contract tendering, property acquisition, utility prep, etc. Some of that would overlap with the first stages of construction, so I would hazard to guess that 8 years is a realistic time frame from the day they give the word 'go'. To meet the 2020 deadline, assuming my year estimate is on the mark, the word 'go' would have needed to be given two years ago in 2012.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/transit_plan/

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The overall route and method are still technically "to be decided" but it's just about a sure thing that it will be underground.

That may be the case. But in a recent Vancouver Sun story, Mike Harcourt claimed that TransLink's preferred plan is to go above ground:

American group says bus route to UBC a 'failure’

Urban Land Institute recommends underground subway, paid in part by employers along line

By Jeff Lee, Vancouver Sun

February 6, 2014

An international panel of land use experts injected themselves into the hot debate over a proposed Broadway transit line Thursday, saying TransLink’s current bus route to the University of B.C. is so inadequate that the system “is essentially at failure” and the only realistic alternative is a new high-capacity line bored underground.

The Urban Land Institute, a Washington D.C.-based group, said Vancouver also needs to avoid making other cities’ mistakes by trying to pay for expensive expansions by linking land use and density to the form of transportation. Putting highrise developments at every station isn’t a good idea, they said.

“You guys do high rises very nicely. But you are sort of drunk on high rises. You don’t need towers everywhere,” said Dick Reynolds, the chairman of a ULI “governor’s advisory panel,” which spent three days examining the Broadway route.

“Just don’t get caught up in the idea that if you pick an expensive transit system for a whole lot of good reasons, you’ve got to upzone everything.”

Reynolds and four other land use experts issued an interim report Thursday that backs up Vancouver’s preference for a bored tunnel between Commercial Drive and UBC. They met with city officials, TransLink and neighbourhood groups. A full report will be issued in two months.

Among the early conclusions the panel offered were that:

• TransLink should avoid light rail technology or a subway built by cut-and-cover method.

• UBC, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and other major employers along the line need to help pay for the system.

• Transit should not drive zoning; existing commercial zones should be filled out first.

• The city has lots of unfilled commercial density east of Burrard Street that can generate jobs.

• The city should largely leave low-density neighbourhoods to the west alone.

With more than a million people and 600,000 jobs expected to move into Vancouver by 2041, the Broadway corridor will continue to cement its status as one of the major job generators in the region, Reynolds said.

“It is our sense that the subway alternative does offer sufficient incremental value to warrant being the long-term solution,” Reynolds said. “It would only work if construction could be done financially and physically by boring rather than cut-and-cover. We’ve lived through areas that have been cut-and-cover and we understand the impacts.”

Reynolds said TransLink, the city and the province need to build relations with neighbourhoods that are clearly wary of the proposed line, in part because of the disruption they witnessed during construction of the Canada Line.

“We had a clear sense that there are some pretty good disconnects that exist here,” he said. “Unfortunately disconnects therefore lead to a lack of trust and confidence.”

TransLink has made no decision about when it will build a new line or what kind of technology will be used. Tamim Raad, the director of strategic planning, said TransLink is developing a regional transportation strategic plan of all necessary projects, against which the Broadway corridor will be measured. There is no indication when Broadway construction would begin, he said.

TransLink recently issued a high-level look at the corridor that examined three technologies; light rail, rapid transit (SkyTrain) and a hybrid concept. While no technology was chosen, TransLink thinks a light rail line from Commercial to UBC is workable, Raad said.

Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs said the ULI’s findings supported the city’s view.

“I was really gratified their conclusions were fundamentally the same as our technical evaluations by our engineers, which is that given the growth that Vancouver is going to have to absorb, the bored tunnel subway is the best answer,” he said. “Not just for handling the growth but to protect the neighbourhoods along the route that would suffer really serious disruption with light rail.”

Former premier and Vancouver mayor Michael Harcourt, who attended the ULI’s briefing, said he is not convinced TransLink will change from its position of wanting an above-ground system, despite the panel’s findings.

“I have a disconnect with TransLink. They have this thing about wanting to go at surface and I think they are out to lunch,” he said. “It’s just dumb, dumb, dumb. You are going to be moving the equivalent of the Expo line, 200,000 people a day. You can’t do that on a surface street car.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/American+group+says+route+failure/9478912/story.html