Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

And too bad so sad, but Vancouver is the main city with the most jobs/entertainment and largest and densest population and built form. If anything, all transit lines for Vancouver should have been built first and long ago, then we could SHAPE build form in the suburbs by designing transit to encourage development. Vancouver has to build transit to FIT existing already dense development (which is only getting more dense every day). ....

That would only work is Vancouver actually pays for transit within its city limits. The thing is it needs the suburban tax dollars to sustain the high levels of transit it already has, including its very frequent buses. The fact that the "main city" expects its suburbs to pay for their sexy transit projects while the rest of the metro population, majority of whom DOES NOT live or work in Vancouver, gets crap is just unfair.

Look into other cities...while taxpayers of Oakland or San Bruno are expected to pay for BART as it traverses their cities and the "main city" that is San Francisco, San Francisco does not expect its suburbs to pay for thier MUNI LRT and trolley buses.

And as far as the Skytrain network is concern, the CoV already has more than enough of their fair share, any additions is just a bonus. The suburbs already paid for the Expo and Millenium Lines that is within CoV. Plus the burbs were forced to pay for Canada Line that only became ridiculously expensive due to CoV's aesthetics requirements, while suburban Richmond gets the shaft from their end of the deal, the rest of the region get NOTHING, not even a seamless connection to the rest of the network!

So while elevated seems to be good for Richmond, New West, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Surrey, and even Eastside Vancouver, I don't see any reason why Westside Vancouver must have it buried. But if CoV really wants that side of the city to only have subways while everyone else have an El train, then they can simply pay for the extra. Its only fair!

[Hot Rod]

it needs to be a subway because of space constraints. It's going through the densest area of the province outside of downtown Vancouver. its going through the 2nd largest office district and to the 3rd largest employment district

It needs to be rapid rail subway in order for all of this to be accomplished. ... got it?

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

it needs to be a subway because of space constraints. It's going through the densest area of the province outside of downtown Vancouver. its going through the 2nd largest office district and to the 3rd largest employment district

It needs to be rapid rail subway in order for all of this to be accomplished. ... got it?

No! It needs to be elevated, like the rest of the region. If Broadway must give up one SINGLE OCCUPANCY CAR lane, then so be it. There is enough parallel streets that single occupancy vehicles can use to get to a Broadway destination anway. Otherwise those who would use a car can easily take the Skytrain. Elevated can accomplish all those so called requirements and the savings can be used to improve transit across the rest of the region. Got it?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

No! It needs to be elevated, like the rest of the region. If Broadway must give up one SINGLE OCCUPANCY CAR lane, then so be it. There is enough parallel streets that single occupancy vehicles can use to get to a Broadway destination anway. Otherwise those who would use a car can easily take the Skytrain. Elevated can accomplish all those so called requirements and the savings can be used to improve transit across the rest of the region. Got it?

i am very against Broadway loosing lanes. as much as Skytrain is better and everything i still think you cant just take away lanes on a major street. there arent that many E/W main streets in this city, especially in that area. 4/6th and King Edward would be about the next main streets. and 4/6th ave is really pushing it as a main street. 4th already has a ton of traffic and it didn't help closing down point grey road.

i took Broadway for many years, both on the 99, (connecting to the 98), and in a car. it is horrible. it needs 4/6 lanes depending on the times. take away 40 buses you still have thousands of cars. put in Skytrain you still have thousands of cars. even Richmond kept #3 road 4 lanes. it is not realistic to take away E/W arterial lanes since they are so far and few between.

i get that you really hate the West Side and all the rich people. but seriously, at least to Arbutus/MacDonald it needs to be under ground. just like it is ridiculous to say it should beALL underground, it is ridiculous to say it should be ALL above ground.

there was also a good point made above, the E and M lines didn't really get built through many established areas at the time. lets face it, most the east side is a dump. i know I'm the big bad guy pointing it out, but you cant honestly tell me that the Broadway corridor on the west side and KGB, commercial drive, lougheed highway are 100% comparable. there is a major difference whether you like to believe it or not. it is a fact.

i know I'm the big bad guy sticking up for the west side and the rich.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

[R]ealistically i think the Broadway line needs to be tunneled at least until Arbutusish. there isn't a lot of surface space to work with. a lot of buildings are close to the streets, even the sidewalk space isn't spectacular. taking away road space down Broadway isn't an option either. even with Skytrain down that street i still think it would be a busy mess. not everyone wants to take transit. it would also be nice to have the city hall Canada Line and Broadway Line stations physically connected through tunnels underground. a stacked idea. N/S on top of E/W or vise versa.

I agree with this. I think underground is technically warranted until somewhere around Arbutus. The rest is creme de la creme's wishes. They of course could scuttle the elevated guideway plans, but I agree if that's the reason, then the city of Vancouver and those residents in some fashion, should bear the burden, not the rest of Metro Van.

[queetz@home]

The problem that I have with the argument of the Broadway Line going underground are:

1) Its all about the cars! All the complaints about "not technically feasible" and so on is all about protecting the single occupancy vehicle user. Elevated can be done, end of story! Again, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot use the parallel streets to get to a Broadway destination.

2) They expect that the entire region, province and country pay billions upon billions for what is really an aesthetic issue. For the sheer costs of making a rapid transit pretty, meaning invisible to the ones living on the Westside, that would mean higher taxes and lesser service to everyone else. If you really want your tunnel, pay for your fair share!

3) Double standard and self entitlement of the Westside is just ridiculous. As pointed out many times, other cities in Metro Vancouver, or even within the CoV but just not as *rich* put up with elevated, why can't the Westside? Why is it that people living along North Road or Lougheed Highway, or Metrotown has to put up with an elevated guideway while those at Cambie or Point Grey must require everyone in the region to pay extra for them not to see an elevated train whizzing by?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Jebby

The original Expo Line goes over an existing rail ROW.

...which would have been no harder to cut-and-cover than Cambie was. Easier, in fact, since it would have had almost zero disruption on traffic and businesses.

Or, to look at it the other way around, it would have been just as easy to build an elevated line along the southern section of Cambie as it was along the Expo line's former rail ROW.

So why is one elevated and the other underground?

[Metro-One]

The Broadway line needs to be tunneled as far as the Arbutus area, after that elevated is more than fine regarding the built form, traffic, and density of the area.

That being said I do think an elevated line along Broadway would look interesting and urban,but it leads to a slippery slope of the entire line just becoming surface rail (since elevated would have a few of the same problems along this corridor that surface would).

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Does Burnaby even have a right to demand one city pay for transit over another? doesn't Burnaby already have the most rapid transit of any city in the lower mainland? Seems to me like they would be on Vancouver's side since it would make their connections legitimate.

Burnaby does have all the Skytrain stations it needs (for this decade anyway) and it's just 1 or 2 B-Lines away from having a 99% complete transit system.

I agree with the idea that Metro Van cities should foot the bill if they demand expensive 'upgrades' to the regionally determined base infrastructure projects based on on non-technical factors, as I talked about in my last post.

However even though I live in Burnaby, I really have to agree with the common perception that Burnaby's attitude to Translink has always been to get what they can get, and refuse kicking and screaming to pay any more for projects located outside Burnaby than they are absolutely forced to. The motivation is 'fiscal responsibility', but the council doesn't care that they got their pieces of the pie first and other cities and the province as a whole contributed substantially.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...which would have been no harder to cut-and-cover than Cambie was. Easier, in fact, since it would have had almost zero disruption on traffic and businesses.

Or, to look at it the other way around, it would have been just as easy to build an elevated line along the southern section of Cambie as it was along the Expo line's former rail ROW.

So why is one elevated and the other underground?

I feel Cambie south of 37th area should have been elevated. The only part of the Cambie Boulevard that has trees that were worth saving is between King Edward and 29th, south of that it is pretty lacking / run of mill vegetation.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Burnaby does have all the Skytrain stations it needs (for this decade anyway) and it's just 1 or 2 B-Lines away from having a 99% complete transit system.

I agree with the idea that Metro Van cities should foot the bill if they demand expensive 'upgrades' to the regionally determined base infrastructure projects based on on non-technical factors, as I talked about in my last post.

However even though I live in Burnaby, I really have to agree with the common perception that Burnaby's attitude to Translink has always been to get what they can get, and refuse kicking and screaming to pay any more for projects located outside Burnaby than they are absolutely forced to. The motivation is 'fiscal responsibility', but the council doesn't care that they got their pieces of the pie first and other cities and the province as a whole contributed substantially.

When in doubt amalgamate??

[Caliplanner]

queetz@home, isn't the (rational) objective here to increase transportation capacity/options, (not take away from it)??? This will be a transportation policy imperative as the city/transportation demand grows (and available urban transportation space shrinks-hence the efficacy of space expanding subterranean transporation modes)!

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i am very against Broadway loosing lanes. as much as Skytrain is better and everything i still think you cant just take away lanes on a major street. there arent that many E/W main streets in this city, especially in that area. 4/6th and King Edward would be about the next main streets. and 4/6th ave is really pushing it as a main street. 4th already has a ton of traffic and it didn't help closing down point grey road.

i took Broadway for many years, both on the 99, (connecting to the 98), and in a car. it is horrible. it needs 4/6 lanes depending on the times. take away 40 buses you still have thousands of cars. put in Skytrain you still have thousands of cars. even Richmond kept #3 road 4 lanes. it is not realistic to take away E/W arterial lanes since they are so far and few between.

i get that you really hate the West Side and all the rich people. but seriously, at least to Arbutus/MacDonald it needs to be under ground. just like it is ridiculous to say it should beALL underground, it is ridiculous to say it should be ALL above ground.

there was also a good point made above, the E and M lines didn't really get built through many established areas at the time. lets face it, most the east side is a dump. i know I'm the big bad guy pointing it out, but you cant honestly tell me that the Broadway corridor on the west side and KGB, commercial drive, lougheed highway are 100% comparable. there is a major difference whether you like to believe it or not. it is a fact.

i know I'm the big bad guy sticking up for the west side and the rich.

Thank you. Some people are like close-minded commies who think everything must be equal. Apparently animosity to the rich clouds logical thinking.

There's are good reasons why the majority of subways in Manhattan are underground compared to Brooklyn or Queens. Pretty certain aesthetics aren't a governing one.

[bardak]

I have to agree with the majority here. It is necessary to tunnel until at least Arbutus. The combination of a narrow arterial road, heavy traffic, and no setbacks for the buildings make it unreasonable to do it elevated. The possible cost of lawsuits is probably way higher than the incremental cost of tunneling and would have to be taken into consideration when deciding if tunneling is and incremental cost or not.

I would also argue that west of macdonald where broadway narrows again it will be necessary to tunnel for the same reasons. And since it would probable cost more to dig an extraction pit at Arbutus, take apart the TBM, dig a launch pit at Mcdonald and put the damn TBM back together again you might as well tunnel it to Blanca. After Blanca though I see no reason not to go at grade to westbrook unless UBC wants to pay for it.

As others have said I see no reason that the Canada line should not have been elevated all the way from King Edward south.

And don't forget New West got Columbia station burred so it's not like there isn't precedence. I think if the original line had been delayed even 3/4 years the entire New West section would have been buried.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by bardak

I have to agree with the majority here. It is necessary to tunnel until at least Arbutus. The combination of a narrow arterial road, heavy traffic, and no setbacks for the buildings make it unreasonable to do it elevated. The possible cost of lawsuits is probably way higher than the incremental cost of tunneling and would have to be taken into consideration when deciding if tunneling is and incremental cost or not.

I would also argue that west of macdonald where broadway narrows again it will be necessary to tunnel for the same reasons. And since it would probable cost more to dig an extraction pit at Arbutus, take apart the TBM, dig a launch pit at Mcdonald and put the damn TBM back together again you might as well tunnel it to Blanca. After Blanca though I see no reason not to go at grade to westbrook unless UBC wants to pay for it.

As others have said I see no reason that the Canada line should not have been elevated all the way from King Edward south.

And don't forget New West got Columbia station burred so it's not like there isn't precedence. I think if the original line had been delayed even 3/4 years the entire New West section would have been buried.

I think that the ground at New West Station is too low to build a station in cheaply. There are no underground parkades there, hence the Plaza88 situation. Of course as we have a tunnel under false creek, etc, anything can be built, but that section would have been prohibitively more expensive . Columbia is not far away from New Westminster but it's up a hill so it was easy.

[Caliplanner]

squeezied, at the risk of being admonished by moderator red-paladin (or anyone suggesting sophomoric knowledge of economics/history) for straying off topic, Marx (the considered father of communism) never advocated EQUALITY but rather EQUITY (as in "from each according to his work, and to each according to his need")! Sorry, can't let ignorance get a pass!

[Caliplanner]

Efficacy in mass transit planning is really about spatial EQUITY not EQUALITY!

[trofirhen]

It's times like this that I wish most of the GVRD had amalgamated into a single "metro" government, the Toronto was. That way,
presumably, there'd be so much less inter-district hassle about paying for whatever.
The final reason being that going underground all the way along Broadway would be so much more 'urbane' and less grotesque-looking.
Excuse this remark, but for those who want a fun, overhead, monorail ride that badly, go to Disneyland .... or take the Evergreen Line. Point Grey
- at least West of Arbutus - would, IMO, be scarred grotesquely by overhead guideway columns, and no I'm not a NIMBY-caterer.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

That would only work is Vancouver actually pays for transit within its city limits. The thing is it needs the suburban tax dollars to sustain the high levels of transit it already has, including its very frequent buses. The fact that the "main city" expects its suburbs to pay for their sexy transit projects while the rest of the metro population, majority of whom DOES NOT live or work in Vancouver, gets crap is just unfair.

You have it backwards. Vancouver routes have 5x the ridership but only 2x the transit dollars invested. It is easy to conclude that, in fact, Vancouver ridership is paying for the suburban routes.

It would be interesting to figure out exactly how much money Vancouver has sunk into money-losing suburban transit over the years. I suspect the dollar figure would exceed the Broadway/UBC Line's price tag.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Zassk

You have it backwards. Vancouver routes have 5x the ridership but only 2x the transit dollars invested. It is easy to conclude that, in fact, Vancouver ridership is paying for the suburban routes.

It would be interesting to figure out exactly how much money Vancouver has sunk into money-losing suburban transit over the years. I suspect the dollar figure would exceed the Broadway/UBC Line's price tag.

A refreshing perspective !!! I hope people can keep that in mind !! Thank you!