Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Sounds good to me!! Skytrain extension of the M-Line to Arbutus is confirmed 100%.. and Translink will be in a position to either extend it to UBC whenever it can afford to, or leave the door open to pursue LRT.

I think we have all learned that nothing is 100% confirmed until funding is in place and shovels in the ground. Currently this meets neither of those requirements. IMO I'd like to see the referendum approved then the province step in and say... "Let's just take it all the way to UBC". We've seen them make similar decisions when they froze the Evergreen extension in favour of Canada Line.

[Hot Rod]

totally agree with this ^.

I'd hope phase I would at least make MacDonald however, Alma would be even better as this is where they'd go elevated anyways and the UBC portion could 'easily' be integrated in. ....

I'd like to see UBC pickup some of the cost to extend it all the way. They could be later in the funding, however, since it would take quite a while before the TBM(s) would make it to near the UBC section.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by nname

TransLink had renamed the Broadway Rapid Transit Project page into Broadway SkyTrain Extension project, and released a RFP for phase 3.

Thanks for posting!

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Sounds good to me!! Skytrain extension of the M-Line to Arbutus is confirmed 100%.. and Translink will be in a position to either extend it to UBC whenever it can afford to, or leave the door open to pursue LRT.

Agreed.
It takes it to the originally planned terminus point and will alleviate the Broadway corridor / hospitals passenger load from the B-Line (i.e. so the B-Line loads will be primarily UBC only)

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by nname

TransLink had renamed the Broadway Rapid Transit Project page into Broadway SkyTrain Extension project, and released a RFP for phase 3.

We can simplify the naming to "Millennium Line" (as it is today)

then in 2016 - "Evergreen extension of the Millennium Line" (aka Phase II),

then later in the decade - "Broadway extension of the Millennium Line" (aka Phase IIIa),

and decades away, "UBC extension of the Millennium Line" (aka Phase IIIb) and "Maple Ridge extension of the Millennium Line" (aka Phase IV).

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

totally agree with this ^.

I'd hope phase I would at least make MacDonald however, Alma would be even better as this is where they'd go elevated anyways and the UBC portion could 'easily' be integrated in. ....

I'd like to see UBC pickup some of the cost to extend it all the way. They could be later in the funding, however, since it would take quite a while before the TBM(s) would make it to near the UBC section.

Broadway / UBC Skytrain will NEVER be elevated west of Main St.
Creme de la creme NIMBYs will make sure it will be underground or Not At All.
(but they may not prevent UBC from building elevated on their own land)

[theKB]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Broadway / UBC Skytrain will NEVER be elevated west of Main St.
Creme de la creme NIMBYs will make sure it will be underground or Not At All.
(but they may not prevent UBC from building elevated on their own land)

Honestly why is everything NIMBY??? I am so sick of this term being used when something is opposed. Putting the line above ground along broadway will just restrict flow even further. But hey... lets just call it NIMBYism because that's the easy way to put it. So I guess the people opposing the Kinder Morgan pipelines are NIMBY's too?

IIRC this has been studied and found to be the best option for the line.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by theKB

Honestly why is everything NIMBY??? I am so sick of this term being used when something is opposed. Putting the line above ground along broadway will just restrict flow even further. But hey... lets just call it NIMBYism because that's the easy way to put it. So I guess the people opposing the Kinder Morgan pipelines are NIMBY's too?

IIRC this has been studied and found to be the best option for the line.

No, they found that extending the viaduct was more cost effective and had more benefit than putting it underground. NIMBY reasons just like in Surrey are why it's being put underground. The Mayor putting his stamp of "no cut-and-cover tunnel" pretty much finalized that.

But you know what, I'm less opposed to the expensive tunnel than I am to any suggestion of LRT down Broadway. We'll look back on the two projects in several years and wonder why we didn't the throw the politicians out. The entire Arbutus fiasco is why it has to be tunneled, because they can't build anything over it.

The Kinder Morgan stuff is also a NIMBY, same with the proposed SFU Gondola. People don't want stuff to ruin their property values by having "noisy" infrastructure tearing things up.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

well NIMBYism has a small part along Broadway. but most of Broadway can't be elevated unless you take away traffic lanes, which isn't an option because there is a ton of traffic with 6 lanes, or spend tons and tons and tons of $$$,$$$,$$$ to acquire property. realistically, there isn't space for an elevated line until about Macdonald Street unless you want to buy properties or take away traffic lanes.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by theKB

Honestly why is everything NIMBY??? I am so sick of this term being used when something is opposed. Putting the line above ground along broadway will just restrict flow even further. But hey... lets just call it NIMBYism because that's the easy way to put it. So I guess the people opposing the Kinder Morgan pipelines are NIMBY's too?

IIRC this has been studied and found to be the best option for the line.

That is super NIMBY, because the people protesting want all of the benefits of the industrialized world without sharring any of the burden.

Not allowing the M-Line to be elevated in and near UBC is NIMBY. There is plenty of room for it to be elevated there.

[dleung]

Our standards are far too low. In Toronto, they're building fully-bored underground subways with palatial stations on greenfield/industrial areas next to the highway, in their equivalent of Maple Ridge.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by dleung

Our standards are far too low. In Toronto, they're building fully-bored underground subways with palatial stations on greenfield/industrial areas next to the highway, in their equivalent of Maple Ridge.

They are also brutally in debt in Toronto...

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That is super NIMBY, because the people protesting want all of the benefits of the industrialized world without sharring any of the burden.

Not allowing the M-Line to be elevated in and near UBC is NIMBY. There is plenty of room for it to be elevated there.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it being underground until on UBC land. Anything NIMBY normally drives me crazy, but in this case, I don't think elevated skytrain would suit the neighbourhoods very well. Past Alma it's very low density, and elevated rail would be a bit of an eyesore. I think elevated skytrain is more suited to medium to high density areas. It adds to the big city vibe.

On the other hand, I definitely think it should be elevated once it gets onto the endowment lands. Would make for a nice view coming into campus.

[Meraki]

I don't think elevated skytrain would suit the Millennium Line very well. Along Lougheed/Broadway it's very low density, and elevated rail would be a bit of an eyesore, not to mention running through Burnaby Lake park. I think elevated skytrain is more suited to medium to high density areas. It adds to the big city vibe.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

That is super NIMBY, because the people protesting want all of the benefits of the industrialized world without sharring any of the burden.

Off topic, but please elaborate on the benefits to us here in Metro Vancouver of the KM pipeline expansion.

If it gets built or doesn't, nothing will change. Of course the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Complain here and they will build it somewhere else. That's a win for us.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it being underground until on UBC land. Anything NIMBY normally drives me crazy, but in this case, I don't think elevated skytrain would suit the neighbourhoods very well. Past Alma it's very low density, and elevated rail would be a bit of an eyesore. I think elevated skytrain is more suited to medium to high density areas. It adds to the big city vibe.

On the other hand, I definitely think it should be elevated once it gets onto the endowment lands. Would make for a nice view coming into campus.

Agreed. An elevated line going up the 10th avenue hill would be a real "slash" on the cityscape there ... (despite the great view it would give).
I think it could come up to suface once past Blanca.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Meraki

I don't think elevated skytrain would suit the Millennium Line very well. Along Lougheed/Broadway it's very low density, and elevated rail would be a bit of an eyesore, not to mention running through Burnaby Lake park. I think elevated skytrain is more suited to medium to high density areas. It adds to the big city vibe.

I'm assuming this is just a really sarcastic redub of my post comparing what I said to what people said about the millennium line?

Even before the skytrain went in, that area was more dense than the West Point Grey area. It's also arguably in a better, more central location within Metro Vancouver, so it's more likely that it will continue to densify in the future.
Being realistic, most neighbourhoods with larger lots, and expensive, somewhat older (heritage) homes along smaller streets are not as likely densify as lower priced neighbourhoods running along arterial roads.

If it weren't for UBC being there, I doubt there'd be any discussion of running skytrain that far into the west side of the city.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Off topic, but please elaborate on the benefits to us here in Metro Vancouver of the KM pipeline expansion.

If it gets built or doesn't, nothing will change. Of course the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Complain here and they will build it somewhere else. That's a win for us.

There aren't really too many significant advantages to Vancouver apart from temporary construction jobs and then a small number of permanent jobs once it opens.
However, the idea that it's a win for us if they build it somewhere else isn't necessarily true. I'd rather see the KM pipeline expanded than the Northern Gateway project go forward. If KM is snuffed, it WILL put more pressure on the NG project.

When it comes to oil tanker traffic, I think it's a better approach to increase the traffic where it is already, rather than bring traffic to new, pristine areas. Vancouver harbour already isn't exactly the cleanest water, so a spill here would be slightly detrimental than it would be up in the sparkling clean waters off the coast of Prince Rupert. Not only that, but the response time for a spill would be much faster in Vancouver. The waters off Vancouver are much more calm in the winter, so a spill is probably less likely in the first place.

In isolation, I'd probably be against the KM expansion, but looking at the alternative (NG) I think it's the lesser of two evils.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Agreed. An elevated line going up the 10th avenue hill would be a real "slash" on the cityscape there ... (despite the great view it would give).
I think it could come up to suface once past Blanca.

That's where I figure it should come up as well. Would be very neat riding elevated transit through relatively untouched forest in a larger city, and would make for some neat views where there are gaps in the trees. Not sure how many other cities have anything comparable.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by dleung

Our standards are far too low. In Toronto, they're building fully-bored underground subways with palatial stations on greenfield/industrial areas next to the highway, in their equivalent of Maple Ridge.

Sounds more like fiscal mismanagement/disregard than high standards.

[officedweller]

It's more likely blindly following a type of system without thinking whether it is suitable or scalable for the limited area needs. i.e. "one size fits all" - extra-large

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by dleung

Our standards are far too low. In Toronto, they're building fully-bored underground subways with palatial stations on greenfield/industrial areas next to the highway, in their equivalent of Maple Ridge.

Except our Maple Ridge doesn't have an equivalent to their York University.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by nname

TransLink had renamed the Broadway Rapid Transit Project page into Broadway SkyTrain Extension project, and released a RFP for phase 3.

The RFP is for the Phase 3A Reference Case development for the UBC / Broadway extension to Arbutus.

It would be for the conceptual design and planning-level cost estimates for the route, station locations and integration with existing Millennium line at VCC, plus preparation for the west-of-Arbutus extension to be built later. This Phase 3A study will include public input during the design stages.

The Phase 3B study for the UBC / Broadway line will build on the results of the Phase 3A Study to do the preliminary planning & engineering needed to create the cost estimates, build the business case and secure funding before the project is approved. The Phase 3B study is not part of this RFP, but will likely be initiated by an RFP in 2015 prior to the Phase 3A study wrapping up.

Looking at the timeline in the RFP, they want this Phase 3A study to start in late January 2015 and is expected to wrap by the Fall 2015, and anticipates the transit referendum to pass. This study will also be used to create preliminary cost estimates so this project can be included in the 10-year Translink investments planning which starts in Fall 2015.

The RFP also shows the future Phase 3B study for the UBC / Broadway line will begin in late 2015 and conclude in late 2016.

Even with these two studies being finished by 2016, there would still be more detailed planning needed before a builder is announced and dirt starts flying.

I find it curious that this timeline meshes with the opening of the new Evergreen extension and the next BC election, and by being included in the 10 year translink investment plans, this suggests to me it should be open by 2025 (or even 2020 if they push it)