Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Doesn't change the fact that claiming a 100 km/h speed for LRT in that kind of implementation is completely disingenuous.

not to mention SkyTrain can go up to 110km/h - 120km/h. they just don't run it like that, anymore.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I thought it was going on the south side of the street.

Would be nice to have two entrances, but one should be built into a new development.

And risk the wrath of all the NIMBYs trying to save the laundromat? Nah, the Arbutus streetcar plan involves the SkyTrain station taking over the Rogers-Fido store and/or the Christmas tree lot behind it. If TransLink buys both it and the Dulux, that's a whole lot more room to work with.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I think I know where the Arbutus station is going.

I thought that too when I saw the story.
... at least one entrance or a bus bay or streetcar platform or something transit-related.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by DKaz

LRT has its use but to connect Commercial-Broadway and UBC is not one of them.

Agreed! I have never tried to say that it is right for this corridor. It just bothers me when people use imagine fictitious arguments. Doing so makes people question everything you say.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Doesn't change the fact that claiming a 100 km/h speed for LRT in that kind of implementation is completely disingenuous.

Please reread what I said (quoted below). I made it clear that it wouldn't be able to get up to that speed. My intent was to say that LRT (if implemnted properly) isn't as slow as people on this forum like to think it is.

Originally Posted by roger1818

• LRT trains need not "clatter along leisurely." Most LRT trains have a maximum speed of 100km/h. As a comparison, Skytrain has a maximum speed of only 80km/h. Now station spacing often prevents trains from getting up to that speed, but that would also be true for Skytrain.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

not to mention SkyTrain can go up to 110km/h - 120km/h. they just don't run it like that, anymore.

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? All the references i have found say 80km/h, but that could be the implementation not the technology.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interesting. Do you have a reference for that? All the references i have found say 80km/h, but that could be the implementation not the technology.

MK I's peg the dial at 100KM/h


Original photographer unknown
Grab a GPS and hang around a window while running between Commercial-Broadway and Main street. That stretch last I measured was doing 90 as of 2015.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Grab a GPS and hang around a window while running between Commercial-Broadway and Main street. That stretch last I measured was doing 90 as of 2015.

Yep, and they keep a little extra speed in reserve for catch-up mode.

[misher]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yep, and they keep a little extra speed in reserve for catch-up mode.

Any idea where the station at Granville and broadway will be?

PS: After watching that richmond driver hit a car then go through the bush at Yaohan I would strongly suggest we bad driver proof transit. Google suggests accidents and deaths occur regularly with LRT https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&......1.......3..0j0i131j46i131.XPmxjufIwVE



If broadway ever becomes like Hastings then I can’t imagine the death toll a LRT would yield. The buses down Hastings hit carts and people all the time. We’d have to paint the LRT red.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Please reread what I said (quoted below). I made it clear that it wouldn't be able to get up to that speed. My intent was to say that LRT (if implemnted properly) isn't as slow as people on this forum like to think it is.

Station spacing, and running in the middle of the street (speed limits, traffic, red lights, and so on and so forth). Hence leisurely clattering. It's the 50km/h or less median alignments - i.e. 90% of all Vancouver LRT proposals - that people are picking bones with; nobody here doubts the theoretical maximum speed or road-separated capabilities of light rail.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Station spacing, and running in the middle of the street (speed limits, traffic, red lights, and so on and so forth). Hence leisurely clattering. It's the 50km/h or less median alignments - i.e. 90% of all Vancouver LRT proposals - that people are picking bones with; nobody here doubts the theoretical maximum speed or road-separated capabilities of light rail.

First of all, if it is in a dedicated ROW, it is not constrained by existing traffic and need not be restricted to the road's speed limit (if proper safety measures are taken).

As for the red lights, as I also said in my original post:

Originally Posted by roger1818

• LRT trains need not stop at cross streets. Train detection systems can be used to drop gates and allow the train to pass without even slowing down.

Now it is worth repeating, for many other reasons, LRT would not be a good solution for the Millennium Line Broadway Extension, but "leisurely clattering" is not one of them.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by MIPS

MK I's peg the dial at 100KM/h

I don't consider having a speedometer that goes up to a given speed an indication that the vehicle is capable of going that speed. I've seen many a car that have speedometers that go up to 140 or 160, but there is no way it could ever reach that speed.

Grab a GPS and hang around a window while running between Commercial-Broadway and Main street. That stretch last I measured was doing 90 as of 2015.

Now that is a better indication, though GPSs aren't good at measuring instantaneous speed, due to errors in pinpointing your exact location.

[MIPS]

Standing at a south facing window gets you at least a half dozen satellites locked. That kind of precision on a modern consumer GPS should get you a 2-4km/h variance.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for the red lights, as I also said in my original post...

Traffic priority still won't permit LRTs to run at 100km/h through intersections. The limiting speed of at-grade LRT in the middle of a street is going to be dictated by safety considerations, not by stop spacing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Traffic priority still won't permit LRTs to run at 100km/h through intersections. The limiting speed of at-grade LRT in the middle of a street is going to be dictated by safety considerations, not by stop spacing.

Cease fire - roger already said 100km/h was the theoretical speed and impractical.

That said, on-road median trams run into trouble even with 50km/h max and five minute headways; Surrey's would average 21-23, which is only slightly faster than the 96 B-Line and actually slower than some trolley buses.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Cease fire - roger already said 100km/h was the theoretical speed and impractical.

Well yeah, but he's stated that station separation is the reason that speed is limited for an at-grade line that runs down the middle of the street - and that's simply not the case. Having signal priority will reduce wait times, but it's not going to allow an LRT to run significantly faster than the speed limit for regular traffic due to safety concerns. Exactly the same kinds of safety concerns that force out-of-service Skytrains to slow way down when they go through a station at which they're not stopping. And that's nowhere near an actual street.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Agreed! I have never tried to say that it is right for this corridor. It just bothers me when people use imagine fictitious arguments. Doing so makes people question everything you say.

Funny, because it is you that is using ficticious arguments.

Originally Posted by roger1818

First of all, if it is in a dedicated ROW, it is not constrained by existing traffic and need not be restricted to the road's speed limit (if proper safety measures are taken).

You are right that LRVs are not inherently slower than Skytrain vehicles, but dead wrong that they can go max speed operating in a roadway, even if it is a dedicated ROW. They will always be limited by whatever the road speed limit is, likely 50km/h. And even with attempts at signal priority, it isn't always practical and the trains will inevitably get held up at times, and that's not to mention the collisions. You can put up raising barriers and fences, but the more of that you put in, the more it destroys the urban environment and it doesn't help anyway.

Leisurely clattering is exactly right - come visit a city with LRT and see how it works in the real world.

It cannot be stated enough, LRT is inferior to Skytrain in every important way except for one big one - cost. If you could build significantly more LRT than Skytrain, it would be worth it. Except, in the real world, it never works out that way, with LRT often being close to the cost of vastly better grade separated rapid transit. See Calgary's Green Line, which is more expensive per km than the Evergreen Line.

Most people on the Vancouver forum get this - they should be listened to.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Funny, because it is you that is using ficticious arguments.

Which arguments are fictitious? Most of what is happening is people twisting my words to imply something I never intended on saying.

You are right that LRVs are not inherently slower than Skytrain vehicles, but dead wrong that they can go max speed operating in a roadway, even if it is a dedicated ROW. They will always be limited by whatever the road speed limit is, likely 50km/h. And even with attempts at signal priority, it isn't always practical and the trains will inevitably get held up at times,

Just look at Calgary's CTrain. Wikipedia says, "Although not universally grade separated, the CTrain is able to operate at high speeds on much of its track because it is separated from traffic and pedestrians by fences and concrete bollards." So it can be done without full grade separation.

and that's not to mention the collisions.

Agreed. The incidents in Calgary yesterday remind us of that.

You can put up raising barriers and fences, but the more of that you put in, the more it destroys the urban environment and it doesn't help anyway.

That is one of the reasons why it isn't appropriate on the Millennium Line Broadway Extension. Other ROWs could be different.

It cannot be stated enough, LRT is inferior to Skytrain in every important way except for one big one - cost.

That is a pretty broad blanket statement, especially when you are comparing a methodology with a specific implementation (kind of like saying vegetables are worse than apples). SkyTrain is a light metro system, so it would probably be better to say, "LRT is inferior to Light Metro" but I am not sure that this would be true in 100% of installations. Alternatively you could say, "CTrain is inferior to SkyTrain" but that doesn't measure the potential of a given system, just specific implementations.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Just look at Calgary's CTrain. Wikipedia says, "Although not universally grade separated, the CTrain is able to operate at high speeds on much of its track because it is separated from traffic and pedestrians by fences and concrete bollards." So it can be done without full grade separation.

"Much of its track" means "NOT all of its track". And for the CTrain the part where it can't operate at high speed is in the downtown core where the track runs down the middle of the street in mixed traffic just like it would have to along Broadway.

So when you said...

Originally Posted by roger1818

...for the Broadway Extension, I believe that SkyTrain is the better technology. Having said that, please get your facts straight before rebutting a proposal. Fictitious arguments for a proposal actually make the overall argument weaker. For example:

• LRT trains need not "clatter along leisurely." Most LRT trains have a maximum speed of 100km/h. As a comparison, Skytrain has a maximum speed of only 80km/h. Now station spacing often prevents trains from getting up to that speed, but that would also be true for Skytrain.

...it's you who's making a fictitious argument by claiming a speed for LRT that is incompatible with the way it would have to be built to run along Broadway.

Nobody is trying to say that and LRT can't run at reasonably high speeds. We're saying that it can't run at reasonably high speeds along Broadway, and the reason isn't the stop spacing, it's because it would have to share the road with cars, pedestrians and cyclists. Broadway simply doesn't have width and distances between intersections to do it any other way.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Which arguments are fictitious? Most of what is happening is people twisting my words to imply something I never intended on saying.



Just look at Calgary's CTrain. Wikipedia says, "Although not universally grade separated, the CTrain is able to operate at high speeds on much of its track because it is separated from traffic and pedestrians by fences and concrete bollards." So it can be done without full grade separation.



Agreed. The incidents in Calgary yesterday remind us of that.



That is one of the reasons why it isn't appropriate on the Millennium Line Broadway Extension. Other ROWs could be different.



That is a pretty broad blanket statement, especially when you are comparing a methodology with a specific implementation (kind of like saying vegetables are worse than apples). SkyTrain is a light metro system, so it would probably be better to say, "LRT is inferior to Light Metro" but I am not sure that this would be true in 100% of installations. Alternatively you could say, "CTrain is inferior to SkyTrain" but that doesn't measure the potential of a given system, just specific implementations.

Yeah, and it's the implementation that makes the difference. 'LRT' implies that it is running in roadways, and will be inevitably slow and unreliable. Saying the vehicles can run at 100km/h is irrelevant as they won't run that fast in practice, so why mention it?

The places where the C-Train runs at 80km/h do have full grade seperation! That further proves the point. It runs at full speed along Crowchild where it is in a freeway median and completely separated from traffic, the same as SkyTrain. Where it runs like an LRT, along 36 St, it runs at the same speed as the traffic, 50 or 60km/h. And 36 St is a monstrosity with huge barriers, in a narrower ROW, speeds would be more limited.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

"Much of its track" means "NOT all of its track". And for the CTrain the part where it can't operate at high speed is in the downtown core where the track runs down the middle of the street in mixed traffic just like it would have to along Broadway.

I agree that it slows down when it gets Downtown, but picks up speed as soon as it gets out of the central core. Maybe it has changed, but when I lived in Vancouver, 16th Ave was not downtown.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

So when you said...

...it's you who's making a fictitious argument by claiming a speed for LRT that is incompatible with the way it would have to be built to run along Broadway.

Nobody is trying to say that and LRT can't run at reasonably high speeds. We're saying that it can't run at reasonably high speeds along Broadway, and the reason isn't the stop spacing, it's because it would have to share the road with cars, pedestrians and cyclists. Broadway simply doesn't have width and distances between intersections to do it any other way.

Umm. No one is even proposing that LRT run along Broadway. The original "clatters along leisurely" comment was made by trofirhen in post #9400 in response to a video suggesting that LRT be run along 16th Ave from Arbutus to UBC. Now I don't think 16th is a good routing for many reasons, but as I keep saying, claiming that it will "clatter along leisurely" is not a good argument against that route.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah, and it's the implementation that makes the difference. 'LRT' implies that it is running in roadways, and will be inevitably slow and unreliable.

According to The International Association of Public Transport (admittedly a European agency) has the following definition (ref):

Light Rail is defined as a UGT [Urban Guided Transport] system operated in parts of the system not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, and in parts of the system with segregated right-of-way. The segregation may include some sections of line where inadvertent access is not possible.

So segregation is required for part of the route. If there is no segregation, it is a tram.

Trams: UGT systems not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, which share their right of way with general road and/or pedestrian traffic and are therefore embedded in their relevant national road traffic legislation (highway codes and specific adaptations).

Originally Posted by milomilo

Saying the vehicles can run at 100km/h is irrelevant as they won't run that fast in practice, so why mention it?

It was probably a mistake to do so. I was just trying to say that modern LRT vehicles perform better than old fashioned street cars.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree that it slows down when it gets Downtown, but picks up speed as soon as it gets out of the central core. Maybe it has changed, but when I lived in Vancouver, 16th Ave was not downtown.

Umm. No one is even proposing that LRT run along Broadway. The original "clatters along leisurely" comment was made by trofirhen in post #9400 in response to a video suggesting that LRT be run along 16th Ave from Arbutus to UBC. Now I don't think 16th is a good routing for many reasons, but as I keep saying, claiming that it will "clatter along leisurely" is not a good argument against that route.

16th is two lanes wide, the same kind of corridor that (as milo noted) tends to slow trams down to less than 50kph. Likewise, Toronto's streetcars run along 2-4 lane roads and so they don't go much faster than regular buses even with their own ROWs. Pretty sure that's what trofirhen meant by "leisurely" - you don't board the 33 to/from UBC if you're in a hurry.

Originally Posted by roger1818

According to The International Association of Public Transport (admittedly a European agency) has the following definition (ref):

Light Rail is defined as a UGT [Urban Guided Transport] system operated in parts of the system not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, and in parts of the system with segregated right-of-way. The segregation may include some sections of line where inadvertent access is not possible.

So segregation is required for part of the route. If there is no segregation, it is a tram.

Trams: UGT systems not segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic, which share their right of way with general road and/or pedestrian traffic and are therefore embedded in their relevant national road traffic legislation (highway codes and specific adaptations).

It was probably a mistake to do so. I was just trying to say that modern LRT vehicles perform better than old fashioned street cars.

It was mentioned a while back that the New World feels no need to set its own definitions, much less follow the Old World's ones (#AmericaF**kYeah). Here, streetcar, light rail and tram are nearly interchangeable; streetcars often run in medians or tunnels, and some light rails operate mixed-traffic segments.

AFAIK, nobody here is insisting that 16th would get a bunch of Twenties museum pieces. This is a very bad hill to die on.