Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Those are maps that are announcing the changes to the routes, so they're only focussed on the routes that are being changed. The permanent maps will be proper, don't worry about it. Also, these maps have nothing to do with the Broadway Extension so I don't know why they're even in this thread.

Yeah I actually took some photos of them myself to post in the general transit discussion thread, but after someone else posted them here I just got lazy and decided to give my opinion here.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I think the only way to get the Millennium line extended is to do it in stages because that makes the chunks small enough to swallow at a time when transit funding is hard to come by. But I agree that there seems to be plenty of demand to do the whole thing at once.

The issue is not funding, but priorities. The province scrapped together 3 billion for a needlessly-big 10 lane bridge just like that. If Toronto can put 3 billion towards a subway extension to nowhere to increase it's ridership by a mere 40,000, the same amount for the Broadway line to serve 250,000+ riders on opening day should be a no-brainer.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by dleung

The issue is not funding, but priorities. The province scrapped together 3 billion for a needlessly-big 10 lane bridge just like that. If Toronto can put 3 billion towards a subway extension to nowhere to increase it's ridership by a mere 40,000, the same amount for the Broadway line to serve 250,000+ riders on opening day should be a no-brainer.

If You use the priority thinking, ending it at Arbutus doesn't make much sense. Cambie or Granville would make sense.

Still don't understand why Arbutus was picked.

[officedweller]

Arbutus was picked because that was the terminus selected in the late 1990s as a Phase II extension of the Millennium Line (before the north-south line route was chosen when Arbutus was a possibility).

The Province at the time said it would contribute to the line to Arbutus - so now it's a matter of extending as far as possible within previous dealings.

[Bdawe]

it is also the end of the central broadway commercial area, and residential density falls off shortly west of there

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by dleung

The issue is not funding, but priorities. The province scrapped together 3 billion for a needlessly-big 10 lane bridge just like that. If Toronto can put 3 billion towards a subway extension to nowhere to increase it's ridership by a mere 40,000, the same amount for the Broadway line to serve 250,000+ riders on opening day should be a no-brainer.

The bridge and 20 or 30 km's of highway improvements is user paid through tolls. So the two are not equal. Also the highway and bridge improvements serve a whole different purpose and benefit the entire province, and country.

Not saying that the broadway line should not have already been built as well.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

it is also the end of the central broadway commercial area, and residential density falls off shortly west of there

That's very true, but I think having Skytrain in the 'hood would spur an increase in density rather quickly.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

it is also the end of the central broadway commercial area, and residential density falls off shortly west of there

But transit trips don't. There is still a lot of demand for transit all the way to UBC which will still require an extensive bus fleet with high frequency to serve.

That said, there is a lot of densification that is going on and will continue to happen along 10th all the way to UBC.

The Jericho Lands will be built up, the UBC golf course will probably be redeveloped now that it's Indian property, the Safeway site near Blanca can be redeveloped into something big, same with the Safeway on McDonald.

And those are just the big sites. The whole corridor is already mixed-use and can easily be densified another 3-4 stories.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Jebby

But transit trips don't. There is still a lot of demand for transit all the way to UBC which will still require an extensive bus fleet with high frequency to serve.

That said, there is a lot of densification that is going on and will continue to happen along 10th all the way to UBC.

The Jericho Lands will be built up, the UBC golf course will probably be redeveloped now that it's Indian property, the Safeway site near Blanca can be redeveloped into something big, same with the Safeway on McDonald.

And those are just the big sites. The whole corridor is already mixed-use and can easily be densified another 3-4 stories.

Right but the question was why Arbutus was picked. Also worth noting is that the Corridor can feed into the Millennium Line and vice versa (once both are completed).

As it is now, ridership drops off after Arbutus; practically everybody who gets on after that is riding all the way to UBC. So a Phase One only needs to go to Arbutus, and by the time City Council gets around to densifying between Macdonald and Sasamat, TransLink might as well push Phase Two all the way to UBC.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right but the question was why Arbutus was picked. Also worth noting is that the Corridor can feed into the Millennium Line and vice versa (once both are completed).
As it is now, ridership drops off after Arbutus; practically everybody who gets on after that is riding all the way to UBC. So a Phase One only needs to go to Arbutus, and by the time City Council gets around to densifying between Macdonald and Sasamat, TransLink might as well push Phase Two all the way to UBC.

That just solidifies that the line should go to UBC from opening day. By doing it in two segments you:

1) Still require the existing B-Line infrastructure and operating costs all the way to UBC while adding complexity of having the bus loop in a woefully inadequate area for that.

2) Increase costs by splitting the project in 2.


There are about 80,000 transit trips done to/from UBC daily. About 60,000 of those are along the Broadway corridor. 44% of all trips on the 99B-Line from Commercial-Broadway Station go all the way to UBC.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

That just solidifies that the line should go to UBC from opening day. By doing it in two segments you:

1) Still require the existing B-Line infrastructure and operating costs all the way to UBC while adding complexity of having the bus loop in a woefully inadequate area for that.

2) Increase costs by splitting the project in 2.


There are about 80,000 transit trips done to/from UBC daily. About 60,000 of those are along the Broadway corridor. 44% of all trips on the 99B-Line from Commercial-Broadway Station go all the way to UBC.

Looking at what you said, it makes total sense, the only real "glitch" I can imagine being that funding the initial project would cost more money than there is available.
Going in two stages like that also risks "stalling" at Arbutus, and the rrt terminus remaining there indefinitely. The density will come to be sure, but is there enough $$$$ to take it all the way?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Looking at what you said, it makes total sense, the only real "glitch" I can imagine being that funding the initial project would cost more money than there is available.

There is nothing "available" at the moment. It's not like the Province or TransLink are sitting on a bank account with a couple billion to build the line out to Arbutus. It's all going to be financed, ie: debt.

As it's public money, the province and TransLink should look to the best possible deal for the taxpayer which would be to built the full line in one phase.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Jebby

There is nothing "available" at the moment. It's not like the Province or TransLink are sitting on a bank account with a couple billion to build the line out to Arbutus. It's all going to be financed, ie: debt.

As it's public money, the province and TransLink should look to the best possible deal for the taxpayer which would be to built the full line in one phase.

I believe the plan is "Phase I" and "Phase II" for both the UBC subway and the Surrey transit extension.

Phase I of the UBC subway is to Arbutus, Phase I of the Surrey transit is whatever rubbish plan gets shoved through. Phase II of the UBC subway goes all the way to UBC, while Phase II of Surrey transit is to Langley.

Plans can change before they get there. In the case of tunneling equipment, yes it does make more sense to just have it go all the way to UBC instead of digging up the tunneling equipment and then digging another hole later to put another one in. Surrey on the other hand makes more sense to extend the Skytrain, and they could ALWAYS have done this because it's not below grade. We could have had an extension from VCC Clark and King George every year if we just kept building. But politics will always shelve a good plan in favor whatever gets the most votes come election season.

It's my hope that whatever happens, it gets to UBC and doesn't get derailed by idiots with a teaching degree like Patrick Condon. Notice the difference in tone between opposition to UBC and Surrey.

The tone "against" UBC comes from people who think a street car can solve everything. Patrick Condon is in the "Urban Design" game at UBC, so you can see how the city "ignoring" his streetcar fantasy makes him look even less credible.

Then there is Adam Fitch who doesn't even live here proposing light rail down 16th. Adding another transfer just to get to the Canada Line, it would be faster to just go all the way downtown and then transfer to the Canada Line to get to Broadway/City Hall.

As long as Mayor Robertson is Mayor that is staying a subway extension of the Millennium Line.

On the other side of the discussion in Surrey, the drive for light rail at any cost is by the Mayor. There is far more opposition by people (Notably Daryl) who actually live and use transit in Surrey against the light rail proposal. Rather they want the Skytrain extended to Langley first.

The irony here is that surface light rail, which is clearly a bad idea, was bundled in the Transit referendum was likely responsible for more opposition to the referendum. This is why it should never have happened. So instead it's delayed everything. Each project should have been voted on by the residents served by it, like they do in Seattle. None of this "poll 600 people" to misrepresent support.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by dleung

The issue is not funding, but priorities. The province scrapped together 3 billion for a needlessly-big 10 lane bridge just like that. If Toronto can put 3 billion towards a subway extension to nowhere to increase it's ridership by a mere 40,000, the same amount for the Broadway line to serve 250,000+ riders on opening day should be a no-brainer.

While you have a valid point you could have used without the over-exageration and bias in your point. Next time try dropping "needlessly-big" and just saying "10 lane bridge" and also try 80,000 riders on opening day instead of the ridiculous 250,000+ which isn't anywhere near realistic or reasonable.

99-B + 009 bus routes = about 80,000 daily during the work week. That number isn't magically going to increase by another 170,000 people that's just ridiculous to claim such. At most I would be surprised if the line doesn't peak around 140,000 ridership per day which is still 110,000 rides short of your number.

Your POINT though that they found the money for other major projects and this one is definitely worthy of that same treatement, is valid and I agree with you 100%. Like I've said for years, this should have been built a decade ago.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

That's very true, but I think having Skytrain in the 'hood would spur an increase in density rather quickly.

Would it though? My impression of "west of Arbutus" is that people owning there would execute any Mayor who even thinks about densification. They don't strike me as a group of home owners that would even welcome townhouses let alone any real density.

I could be wrong though. I just think it would be easier to build high rises in Shaughnessy than west of Arbutus.

On second thought though I guess densification south of Broadway may be more possible but I take a look at Google Maps and I'm not totally sure about things. For example, if they densified 4th Ave would a SkyTrain down Broadway really help? There's already a UBC bus going fown 4th I'd imagine that would continue just like bus service on Oak Street didn't go away as soon as Canada Line opened. Granted Oak is about 400m further away from Cambie than 4th to 10th, but it is still half a km away.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Would it though? My impression of "west of Arbutus" is that people owning there would execute any Mayor who even thinks about densification. They don't strike me as a group of home owners that would even welcome townhouses let alone any real density.

I could be wrong though. I just think it would be easier to build high rises in Shaughnessy than west of Arbutus.

........ hmmmm, I see your point. I guess I was thinking primarily of Broadway Corridor density. But yes, there would be a huge NIMBY reaction in adjacent neighborhoods, for sure!

[GlassCity]

Yeah I don't understand the argument that it's not dense enough west of Arbutus when we're building SkyTrain to Coquitlam and Langley. There is plenty of commercial space all along the corridor, and due to the gridded street network the houses are denser then they look. As Jebby says, it can still be densified without too many issues, not to mention that the western end of the line would likely be the second biggest transit anchor after downtown. Not building it to UBC in one go would be a very poor decision that would be difficult to back up.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah I don't understand the argument that it's not dense enough west of Arbutus when we're building SkyTrain to Coquitlam and Langley. There is plenty of commercial space all along the corridor, and due to the gridded street network the houses are denser then they look. As Jebby says, it can still be densified without too many issues, not to mention that the western end of the line would likely be the second biggest transit anchor after downtown. Not building it to UBC in one go would be a very poor decision that would be difficult to back up.

The Evergreen Line estimates are for 70,000 riders by 2021. On day 1 of operations, there would be over 60,000 riders going all the way to UBC.

You can get even more trips if you factor in ridership from the 4, 9, 14, 17, 25, 41, 43, 44, 49, 84, 258 and 480 bus routes, not just the 99.

[WarrenC12]

I don't think anybody here would dispute the need for a Skytrain extension all the way to UBC. We're just trying to be realistic about what would get approved.

This will likely cost over 2x the amount of the Evergreen Line. And as we know, the only multi-billion dollar projects that get easily greenlit are big bridges.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah I don't understand the argument that it's not dense enough west of Arbutus when we're building SkyTrain to Coquitlam and Langley. There is plenty of commercial space all along the corridor, and due to the gridded street network the houses are denser then they look. As Jebby says, it can still be densified without too many issues, not to mention that the western end of the line would likely be the second biggest transit anchor after downtown. Not building it to UBC in one go would be a very poor decision that would be difficult to back up.

Maybe everyone anticipates the difficulty to densify West Broadway further compared to the potential to densify in the tri-cities. The Evergreen line will definitely bring about a boom in high-rise construction there, but in Van west, not really possible. The selfish old guard will come out to "defend their turfs". The most practical thing to do is to extend the skytrain in stages: first to Arbutus, and then possibly further west to UBC after the old guard die off sometime in the future.