HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


View Poll Results: Based on options for Broadway Corridor Study, what is your preferred choice?
BRT: Commercial to UBC 25 6.16%
LRT A: Commercial to UBC OR Commercial via VCC to UBC 31 7.64%
LRT B: Main St. to UBC AND Commercial to UBC 18 4.43%
RRT: Commercial to UBC OR VCC to UBC 283 69.70%
COMBO: RRT to Arbutus/LRT to Main St via Arbutus 39 9.61%
BUS: Enhanced Bus Service for all buses to UBC 10 2.46%
Voters: 406. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7341  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 6:22 PM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture View Post
i don't think you've thought out the consequences completely of a shut down of 2 lanes. so lets say there is a median down the middle, and 2 lanes of traffic on either side.

Buses - okay, so you have buses going down Broadway. which means bus stops every block. sure, it isn't an end-all, but it is still a factor. just because a train is built, not everyone will use it. sure it will remove cars, but Broadway is way over capacity as it is. even with a lot of cars removed, there would still be a ton. i don't understand this mentality people have here of "the cars will disappear!!!!!" no, they wont. some will, but as has been shown, even with Sky-Train there is still a ton of traffic on Cambie WITH Canada-Line UNDER that street. specifically looking at King-Edward North since that is similar to Broadway.

Parking - you couldn't have parking on Broadway anymore, 24/7 it would need to be a no stopping zone. there is not enough off-street parking along Broadway during the daytime. they fill up pretty good. parking on Broadway, as it is now, is pretty full throughout the day as well. if you did allow parking, that means the street would be 1 lane in each direction. that would NOT be feasible at all.

Trucks, Cars - so, you either are left with a 2 lane street that allows no stopping, or a 1 lane street with parking. we in the real world realise that yes, transit will certainly help, but it will not get rid of enough cars to make a 2 lane street realistic. where as if it stays 6 lanes, we keep parking, and we also have a lot less gridlock. and i am sure i don't need to tell you that idling cars pollute A LOT more then moving cars. it also gives the option to keep no stopping zones during rush-hour and IMPROVING traffic flow. why is everyone here against improving traffic flow?????? that means less time idling, less pollution, less stress, a faster commute home, less adverse health effects.

The Guide-Way - assuming it goes down the centre of the road, in a median, you are talking only about 10m from either side of buildings along Broadway. you are talking commercial offices, Drs offices, housing, etc. if it is on one side, then you are talking right on the windows. Chicago EL anyone?

Construction - you really think building a station above ground will be LESS disruptive? no, it wont be, not enough to be material anyways. there is no room for staging other than on the physical road space, buildings have no set backs. with boring, you only need to deal with the stations. and there are ways to dig down, and cover the hole so that vehicles can still drive over the hole while they do their work underneath. wouldn't be the first time that is used, and wont be the last I'm sure.

Other Streets - where else could the cars go? 4th is too busy, 12th is too busy, 16th isn't all that big of a street. 10th is for bikes and the CoV is making it that way on purpose, they are discouraging cars on it. that is a trend that will continue. it is the busiest E/W route in the city for bikes. also, 10th is ALREADY a mess as it is.

The View - what view? you mean those tiny little slivers as you pass over the N/S streets? in that "very fast train," how much of a view will you get over those streets? 1.0 second? 0.75 seconds? other then that, you'd be staring into the buildings that i mentioned above in "The Guide-Way." windows upon more windows of all kinds of offices and housing.

Sci-fi Reasons - seriously??? "hey lets do what Hollywood does because that's realistic right?" why do we even bother having people in the planning field? we can just go by what Hollywood does since if it is good for them, it is good for us.

"It's Easier" (this one will sound like a bit of a preach, be forewarned) - the worst reason of them all i think. it screams of mediocrity and shortsightedness. that is like the Canada-Line. it was easier to build short stations, single tracking, and omitting stations for the future. and look at that, it'll bite us in the — later. building it underground, that is forward thinking. that is saying, "Broadway might be changing in the future, at some point, lets not hinder its prospects because it is easier, lets do what is harder, but the right choice."

doing what is "easy" is not how we become better. if we did what you said, and did what was "easier," we wouldn't have even half of what Western Society has built. we wouldn't have skyscrapers, air planes, we wouldn't have landed on the moon. we don't get better by doing easy things, we become stagnant.
You bring up a lot of good points. but...

1) Why are cities building 4 lane roads and then making the curb lane a parking lane? This defeats the purpose of 4 lanes.

2) Parking garages. The city/Translink could build them and then charge for parking like a lot of other major cities do.

3) Rerouting buses happens. Look at the construction of the LRT in Ottawa. Their express buses are not so express now.

4) They could tunnel from Brunswick and Great Northern to Main. At Broadway and Main area it could then be elevated.
     
     
  #7342  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 6:24 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 8,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The more I think about it the more I think they will plan the route along Broadway as a result of what ever backroom political agreement someone came to and during public consultations realize they cant do it. Everyone else working on his project and doing the planing will just get paid twice.
My Translink mole tells me that the Broadway decision has been made, no turning back nor hope to change the routing.

And when was the last time public consultations regarding anything in the City of Vancouver resulted in a measurable change of plans?

Trust me, I wish the route was down 10th also, but there's political agendas here with more inertia than any public "consultation" will ever shift.
     
     
  #7343  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 6:41 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kisai View Post
Rightly or Wrongly, the subway (below grade) is the correct choice when you want to preserve "views" or plan for the future. If this means some short-term pain (the pain is worse for surface LRT's, which render the entire street unusable to install or rip up tracks and utilities) then it's preferable. Vancouver's population isn't going to just stop dead once it's built.

You can not have it both ways, rapid transit and stay low density. That makes the transit uneconomical (surface rail is always uneconomical, when you put it above grade at least it stops being an accident magnet, but when you put it below grade it preserves the at-grade alignment for local bus service.)

Surrey is going to learn this the hard way when surface rail on KGB and 104 force people to take the Port Mann instead of going through Surrey. Literately the LRT is designed to trap people in Surrey. Let's flip the script for a moment and say Surrey decided to build a Subway and Broadway was a LRT...

If Broadway was a LRT, it would cut off every north-south throughfare between UBC and Clark Drive. So Highway 1A, Main, Cambie, Grandville(Highway 99,) Burrard, all get cut off. Anyone wanting to drive into Vancouver would have to take Hastings. It would be a huge disaster. If it was an above-grade Skytrain, they would likely run the track above Broadway but use low-impact pillars on the south side of the road like they did with the Canada Line instead of putting the entire guideway down the center of Broadway.

If Surrey's LRT was a Subway, then it wouldn't cut off all the north-south and east-west traffic around Surrey. But the LRT will cut off Highway 1A, Fraser Highway, and all traffic crossing KGB which means Delta is cut off except by taking SFPR or Highway 10.

So the difference, is that in Vancouver, at-grade work would cut the downtown entirely off because it cuts off all three of the north-south bridges. It would also impair North and West Vancouver traffic from crossing the Lions Gate, so there would be grid lock on that bridge and straight through downtown.

In Surrey, the LRT is going to divide the city in half. The West side will be cut off from the East side, but anyone on the west trying to go around still has the option of 128th and 108th. But likely will be perpetual gridlock, and people will be told to take SFPR to avoid Surrey entirely. While Surrey essentially is cut off by building the LRT, there is still a route around it.


Which comes back to the reason why Underground should be preferred where there are existing buildings. It impacts the surface the least. However it's not completely without issues, since the stations still need to be built, but that can pretty much be done by demolishing the buildings on either side of Broadway, supporting the road, and then excavating underneath, or the cheaper route of excavating the entire station at once and simply directing traffic around it. In the latter case it makes more sense to build all the stations foundations at the same time and restore the road.
As an urban rail transportation planner from California I have to say that you're making way too much sense here for those who are hooked on LRT......
     
     
  #7344  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2016, 7:06 PM
Genauso's Avatar
Genauso Genauso is offline
A hole being Doug
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 498
You build underground to save on costs of accumulating continuous property, including rights to infringe on neighbouring properties.


As for Cut & Cover, TBM. There's flexibility within each of those for how they are done. When Cambie was done with Cut & Cover, they kept the entire length excavated and closed off for the duration of the project. It could have been done in segments to minimize disruptions to local businesses and cross-traffic, the priority was delivering on-time and at-cost.

Many complaints stem from the fact it would have been much easier to do this project decades ago, but I don't see it getting easier by waiting either.
     
     
  #7345  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 2:31 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by s211 View Post
My Translink mole tells me that the Broadway decision has been made, no turning back nor hope to change the routing.

And when was the last time public consultations regarding anything in the City of Vancouver resulted in a measurable change of plans?

Trust me, I wish the route was down 10th also, but there's political agendas here with more inertia than any public "consultation" will ever shift.
It wont be possible because it will cut off a major part of the city. Cambie is one of many north south roads, there was enough alternate routes. There are not enough alternate routes for Broadway. They wont be able to shut down Broadway for a two year stretch. It wont be possible because it will cut off a major part of the city. Cambie is one of many north south roads, there was enough alternate routes. There are not enough alternate routes for Broadway. They wont be able to shut down Broadway for a two year stretch unless they build the stations without excavations in which case you could end paying a 4 to 5 billion dollars just to extend the line 3.75 km's to Arbutus. It will be either too expensive and wont be able to secure funding, or it will be too disruptive and will grind to a halt via lawsuits and eventually be politically abandoned as well. The line wont be built any time soon if Broadway has been chosen for a board tunnel and I am willing to bet a small sum of money on this. Not within 10 years for sure and probably not within 20 years if the project is forced to start from scratch and become too political.

They should have gone under 10th and we would have a line within 10 years probably. Or what has grown on me is elevated down 2nd, later following the rail right of way and with a terminus at Arbutus. Canada line exchange at Olympic village, a overhead and later bored moving walk way from a elevated Heather/Oak station up to Broadway and the hospital, and then a major bus exchange at Arbutus for the 99. The rest of Broadway can have improved bus service to move passengers between Commercial station, Cambie station, the walk way / Heather / Hosptial station and Arbutus. This could probably all be done for 500-750 million dollars. ROW is all there, all elevated, all simple, few disruptions. A very easy project.
     
     
  #7346  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 2:50 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
They should have gone under 10th and we would have a line within 10 years probably. Or what has grown on me is elevated down 2nd, later following the rail right of way and with a terminus at Arbutus. Canada line exchange at Olympic village, a overhead and later bored moving walk way from a elevated Heather/Oak station up to Broadway and the hospital, and then a major bus exchange at Arbutus for the 99
Not an option. Broadway rapid transit is supposed to service the actual corridor, not the streets 3-7 blocks north of it. You also need to get it through Olympic Village... then past the bridge overpasses... and through West 4th, which is even less suited for elevated rail or densification... point is, it's gotta be underground along either Tenth or Broadway.
     
     
  #7347  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 3:42 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Not an option. Broadway rapid transit is supposed to service the actual corridor, not the streets 3-7 blocks north of it. You also need to get it through Olympic Village... then past the bridge overpasses... and through West 4th, which is even less suited for elevated rail or densification... point is, it's gotta be underground along either Tenth or Broadway.
It would go down 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th. Many options and 4 of them are away from residential assuming it would run on the south side of 2nd. The important areas to service is Canada line (check), Hospital (good enough with a Laurel station and dedicated 300 meter path), Granville street north/south service, and Arbutus 99 transfer to UBC.
No doubt down 10th would be better, it would also be probably 400+% more expensive. Down 2nd and old CN line it would accomplish something like 80% of the objectives for a fraction of the costs and headaches.

Either way if they really decided on a bored Broadway tunnel then we wont be seeing any rapid transit along that corridor for the next 10 to 20 years. By that time so many things will change, automation, job losses, growth, etc. etc. Who knows what the priorities will be then. Maybe by then they decide to go with driver-less buses.
     
     
  #7348  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 3:57 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
As an urban rail transportation planner from California I have to say that you're making way too much sense here for those who are hooked on LRT......
///in your response to the post by Kisai/// .....
That is so true!!! People here don't seem to travel enough and compare systems.
I remember as a kid visiting Brussels. There, they had an LRT surface system, but it dipped into tunnels under main roads. Since then, it has become a full-fledged underground system.
I wonder if that would be possible to do in Surrey? I'm sure there will be 1001 answers why it's "unfeasible." ..... life goes on ....
     
     
  #7349  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 4:29 AM
ilikeredheads ilikeredheads is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: west coast
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
It would go down 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th. Many options and 4 of them are away from residential assuming it would run on the south side of 2nd. The important areas to service is Canada line (check), Hospital (good enough with a Laurel station and dedicated 300 meter path), Granville street north/south service, and Arbutus 99 transfer to UBC.
No doubt down 10th would be better, it would also be probably 400+% more expensive. Down 2nd and old CN line it would accomplish something like 80% of the objectives for a fraction of the costs and headaches.

Either way if they really decided on a bored Broadway tunnel then we wont be seeing any rapid transit along that corridor for the next 10 to 20 years. By that time so many things will change, automation, job losses, growth, etc. etc. Who knows what the priorities will be then. Maybe by then they decide to go with driver-less buses.
That accomplishes nothing because it's doesn't serve Broadway Corridor. You are making people walk several extra blocks for no practical reason. I'm sure people who work there would love that.They'll just continue to take the 99 because it's more convenient and direct. How would you go through Cambie Street bridge and Granville street bridge?
     
     
  #7350  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 5:14 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeredheads View Post
That accomplishes nothing because it's doesn't serve Broadway Corridor. You are making people walk several extra blocks for no practical reason. I'm sure people who work there would love that.They'll just continue to take the 99 because it's more convenient and direct. How would you go through Cambie Street bridge and Granville street bridge?
Exactly. It's not just about linking UBC, South Granville, VGH, or even the Canada Line, but also everything on Broadway in-between them. The street is a major destination in itself.
     
     
  #7351  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2016, 6:54 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
///in your response to the post by Kisai/// .....
That is so true!!! People here don't seem to travel enough and compare systems.
I remember as a kid visiting Brussels. There, they had an LRT surface system, but it dipped into tunnels under main roads. Since then, it has become a full-fledged underground system.
I wonder if that would be possible to do in Surrey? I'm sure there will be 1001 answers why it's "unfeasible." ..... life goes on ....
Surrey has enough space on Fraser Hwy and King George for elevated Skytrain. I'm not sure about 104th, although considering the hill they could start tunnelling it part way up. The problems are money and that Surrey wants rail built yesterday - they'll build as much as they can with whatever money they can get, ignoring how much it'll cost to run. It's a completely different problem than Broadway Skytrain.
     
     
  #7352  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 1:09 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,032
Okay, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is what Montreal plans to have open in 2020.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkahHigh View Post
More REM details from the procurement notice:







Like, is that timeline fantasy?

How can all that be built (including tunneling under downtown Montreal and connecting the system to the existing metro system) and open by 2020, but our 6km Broadway extension (which would begin roughly the same time if all goes well) will not open until several years after?

Also, why do other Canadian cities seem to build unnecessarily long platforms? (Ottawa 120 meters, this will be 160 meters!)

To be honest seems like a waste of money to me.

I think it has been shown that with only 100 meters our skytrain lines can achieve far into heavy rail capacity. (Hell, the Canada Line can achieve a pretty suprising number with a full build out of only 50 meters).

Almost feels like a residual planning decision that stations need to be so long from the past, when far more frequent trains using shorter platforms are the superior option with our technology today. To be honest this is exactly how I fee about where I live in Japan. The platforms here must be well over 200 meters, but i have yet to ever see a train take up the entire platform (in fact most of the local trains are only 2 to 4 cars!). There is a regional train that comes by once an hour or less that has about 8 cars. Even with the regional, local, and express trains combined a train arrives at the station around once every 10 minutes. Just seems such as waste to build such big stations. Run the trains twice as frequent (please! Missing a train here —) and cut the station lengths in half. Super long stations are actually annoying when your 2 car train stoops at the other end...
     
     
  #7353  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 1:26 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,106
^ I believe they have existing tracks and tunnel?
     
     
  #7354  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 1:42 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,032
Sounds like most of the tunnels will be new. And the entire elevated section will also be New of course. Maybe some of the at grade is along existing ROW? Still, a massive amount to be built within 3 years.
     
     
  #7355  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 2:49 AM
ilikeredheads ilikeredheads is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: west coast
Posts: 652
it says platforms are 80m, not 160m. However, there's nothing wrong with having longer platforms. You want to build a transit system that takes consideration into future growing demands. Having longer platforms means you can easily increase capacity by adding more cars to the trains. There will no need to worry about further construction, which might impact service levels and passenger inconvenience.

Canada Line is a prime example of shortsightedness by underbuilding its stations. Not all the stations are at 50m which means extra funding and construction will be needed in the future. Even at 50m, the platforms are still too short and greatly limits the way the capacity can be expanded. The extra 10m is a very odd choice considering that each car is 20m long. Imo, the platforms should be 80m because you can easily increase the capacity by just combining two 2-car trains into a single 4-car train. It gives you the flexibility in case there's lack of funding to purchase extra trains.
     
     
  #7356  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 2:54 AM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 449
Really long platforms seem redundant. Like what's the point of it being that long, more cars? Just have regular sized trains with a higher frequency.
     
     
  #7357  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 3:46 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikeredheads View Post
it says platforms are 80m, not 160m. However, there's nothing wrong with having longer platforms. You want to build a transit system that takes consideration into future growing demands. Having longer platforms means you can easily increase capacity by adding more cars to the trains. There will no need to worry about further construction, which might impact service levels and passenger inconvenience.

Canada Line is a prime example of shortsightedness by underbuilding its stations. Not all the stations are at 50m which means extra funding and construction will be needed in the future. Even at 50m, the platforms are still too short and greatly limits the way the capacity can be expanded. The extra 10m is a very odd choice considering that each car is 20m long. Imo, the platforms should be 80m because you can easily increase the capacity by just combining two 2-car trains into a single 4-car train. It gives you the flexibility in case there's lack of funding to purchase extra trains.
Okay, not sure why I thought they were 160 meter platforms (which IMO would be super overkill for a modern metro line in an urban area under 10 million people).

Just to let you know the 3rd C-car of the Canada Line is 15 meters long, not 20 (this is because it doesn't need any of the "brains" that the other two cars have).

80 meter platforms are fine. Unless your urban area is over 10 million or so anything over 100 meters for a metro line is redundant (Ottawa's Confederation Line seems to have made a lot of bizarre choices, 120 meter platforms for a city under 1.5 million...). Automation and advances in signaling can run trains far more frequent and smoothly than in the past.

With that said, if I had control over the Canada Line I would have made the stations expandable to 65 meters, allowing 2 C-cars to be added (4 car trains). Even so, I am much happier to have the Canada Line (automated, fully grade separated) than other at grade / partially at grade systems with longer platforms, such as Seattle's Link LRT.

Back to the original main topic, how can Montreal build all that in 3 years???
     
     
  #7358  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 3:59 AM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,498
There seems to be an odd thing with this board where people think the Skytrain's high frequency is unique - it isn't. It's not a choice of long platforms or high frequency, there are many systems that have both.
     
     
  #7359  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 4:02 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,191
What does underbuilt actually mean anyways? It has taken 30 years for the Expo Line to get to a peak load of 15 000 pph. Canada Line has an ultimate capacity at that same 15 000 pph (with 2 min headways). With the Canada Line being much shorter and serving a much smaller population, it will certainly take much longer than 30 years to reach its capacity. More like 50 or 60 years, which is a pretty good run. Don't forget that the Canada Line is a bargain compared to other systems that run underground. It looks to me like the Canada Line will reach its capacity in the same amount of time that the Expo Line will reach its capacity (50 - 60 years).
     
     
  #7360  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2016, 4:08 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant - The New Downtown South
Posts: 8,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
There seems to be an odd thing with this board where people think the Skytrain's high frequency is unique - it isn't. It's not a choice of long platforms or high frequency, there are many systems that have both.
I'm curious to know which systems (long platforms/high frequency) match or come close to Skytrain?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:04 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.