Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[ilikeredheads]

tbh, the chance of elevating the line is very slim due to NIMBYs. Logic don't apply to them and you simply can't reason with them. Just look at West Van. Even without the NIMBYs, the golf course is still in the way.

[dleung]

If Toronto can spend $3 billion on the fully-underground Spadina extension to increase subway ridership in the middle of nowhere by a measly 80,000 by 2020, Vancouver should be able to easily justify spending the same amount on North America's busiest bus corridor to carry 200,000 more passengers on day 1

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by dleung

If Toronto can spend $3 billion on the fully-underground Spadina extension to increase subway ridership in the middle of nowhere by a measly 80,000 by 2020, Vancouver should be able to easily justify spending the same amount on North America's busiest bus corridor to carry 200,000 more passengers on day 1

Care to elaborate? Tunnel or el-way, we're still getting 200k daily capacity regardless.

[fredinno]

00

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by dleung

If Toronto can spend $3 billion on the fully-underground Spadina extension to increase subway ridership in the middle of nowhere by a measly 80,000 by 2020, Vancouver should be able to easily justify spending the same amount on North America's busiest bus corridor to carry 200,000 more passengers on day 1

That $3B one-station extension is not without controversy.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Now we know why.

Maybe for linking back uphill to the mezzanine of the existing Canada Line station, but not for directly linking down to a new platform or mezzanine on the Broadway Extension (?) - unless the new platform is wholly situated east of Cambie.

[Feathered Friend]

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
A. THAT Council instruct staff to report back to Council with a thorough review of
the existing relationship between the City of Vancouver, SNC Lavalin, and
Bombardier, including the procurement relationship.
B. THAT Council instruct staff to report back to Council with information on how
SkyTrain use as a Millennium Line extension could be affected by further
outcomes of the criminal prosecution for corruption charges of SNC-Lavalin
Group Inc. and the World Bank's audit of Bombardier for allegations of
corruption.
C. THAT Council instruct staff to consult with TransLink staff and report back to
Council on the results as soon as available from the TransLink staff report to the
Mayors’ Council on any proprietary rights or bidding advantage of SNC-Lavalin
and Bombardier for the SkyTrain Millennium Line extension and the ability for
other firms to bid competitively.
D. THAT the above information be provided to Council, and before any further
Council decisions are made on a Broadway subway phase 1 or phase 2 for a
SkyTrain Millennium Line extension, Council should consider whether any
information required by this motion has not been presented to Council, and
whether any decision should be delayed until that information is fully reviewed
and confirmed to Council’s satisfaction.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20190402/documents/motionb5.pdf

Looks like Councillor Hardwick is taking yet another crack at trying to delay the expansion.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Maybe for linking back uphill to the mezzanine of the existing Canada Line station, but not for directly linking down to a new platform or mezzanine on the Broadway Extension (?) - unless the new platform is wholly situated east of Cambie.

Yeah, probably easier logistics-wise to put the Millennium station to the side, instead of under the Canada's.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, probably easier logistics-wise to put the Millennium station to the side, instead of under the Canada's.

That would mitigate impacts to the Broadway / Cambie intersection and especially Cambie Street while the excavation for the station pit is in progress.

East of cambie also allows the station pit to be less deep since the surface elevation increases to the west and the elevation of the platform is going to be fixed by the crossing under the Canada Line tunnel.

[officedweller]

... plus the new City Hall Campus is to the east, and the City may want a direct secondary entrance in that direction instead.
... and if the Oak Station entrance is really at Laurel, the station spacing is better if Cambie Station is also oriented eastwards.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://council.vancouver.ca/20190402/documents/motionb5.pdf

Looks like Councillor Hardwick is taking yet another crack at trying to delay the expansion.

You can apply to speak to City Council about this at the meeting. If any delegates then the motion will be referred to the next standing committee meeting (likely the Policy and Strategic Priorities on Weds 9:30AM).

I've already sent in my application (as I did for the first round, where I was supposed to be speaker #4 on the topic).

https://vancouver.ca/your-government/request-to-speak-at-meeting-form-1.aspx

[officedweller]

From the sqwabb blog:

More Broadway subway station location speculation—this time Arbutus


The three current candidates for an Broadway subway terminus at Arbutus.—Google Street View
https://sqwabb.wordpress.com/2019/04/01/...eculation-this-time-arbutus/#more-110374

[Kisai]

I don't know how many people actually care about surveys on this topic, but
https://www.placespeak.com/topic/6150/
An extension of the Millennium Line is proposed from VCC-Clark Station to Arbutus, with an additional extension to UBC. What do you think?

It appears to be run by Patrick Condon, longtime foe of rapid transit. Just look at the completely lop-sided articles cited.

[SpongeG]

to participate you have to sign away your life. no thanks.

[waves]

I disagree with the last two questions in the survey.

(tldr; q1: LRT is not zero GHG; q2: public transportation improves affordability in general including access to affordable housing)

For the first half of question 1 on zero GHG, he does not define the scope which is problematic because while Skytrain will require more concrete than LRT, the operating emissions over it's lifetime will be much less. When you consider in operating emissions LRT is not zero GHG. In the surrey rapid transit study it was noted that the surrey LRT would increase GHG by 38,000 tonnes. The second half of this question about using it across the city rather than just the Broadway Corridor is also flawed because it tries to pit one project against another when Skytrain is the only option that can accommodate the demand on the Broadway Corridor. LRT would be at capacity on opening day, thus meaning that however many billions would have been spent on an option that would eventually need to be replaced by Skytrain anyways.

The second question asks about spending money on cheaper housing. I would love there to be more student housing, but the issue of 'affordability' is not only defined by housing but also by food, transportation, and social activities. Funding transportation is a unique option however in that it can impact the affordability of those other factors by increasing choice. Choice of where to live while not being too far away from school and choice of goods with increased connectivity. Funding public transportation is a key way of making existing affordable housing options more accessible and thus it is a more effective use of funding that will benefit more people than just the select few that are lucky enough to receive subsidized housing. There are routinely 10,000 students annually on the UBC housing wait-lists. The Broadway Subway will benefit every single one of them. With his suggestion supposing that the funds saved could be used for housing (which they can't), they will receive no time travel or crowding benefits, and likely still not get into housing. The only people winning here are NIMBYs and urbanistic delusionals.


https://i.imgur.com/P0cHbSZ.png?1

[WarrenC12]

Remember PlaceSpeak is owned by NIMBY councilor extraordinaire, Colleen Hardwick.

She'd love to veto the Broadway subway, and will use any ammunition available.

I'm not sure many people supporting LRT or a streetcar actually want that, or just want to throw a wrench into the Skytrain extension, so nothing happens at all.

[misher]

Originally Posted by waves

I disagree with the last two questions in the survey.

(tldr; q1: LRT is not zero GHG; q2: public transportation improves affordability in general including access to affordable housing)

For the first half of question 1 on zero GHG, he does not define the scope which is problematic because while Skytrain will require more concrete than LRT, the operating emissions over it's lifetime will be much less. When you consider in operating emissions LRT is not zero GHG. In the surrey rapid transit study it was noted that the surrey LRT would increase GHG by 38,000 tonnes. The second half of this question about using it across the city rather than just the Broadway Corridor is also flawed because it tries to pit one project against another when Skytrain is the only option that can accommodate the demand on the Broadway Corridor. LRT would be at capacity on opening day, thus meaning that however many billions would have been spent on an option that would eventually need to be replaced by Skytrain anyways.

The second question asks about spending money on cheaper housing. I would love there to be more student housing, but the issue of 'affordability' is not only defined by housing but also by food, transportation, and social activities. Funding transportation is a unique option however in that it can impact the affordability of those other factors by increasing choice. Choice of where to live while not being too far away from school and choice of goods with increased connectivity. Funding public transportation is a key way of making existing affordable housing options more accessible and thus it is a more effective use of funding that will benefit more people than just the select few that are lucky enough to receive subsidized housing. There are routinely 10,000 students annually on the UBC housing wait-lists. The Broadway Subway will benefit every single one of them. With his suggestion supposing that the funds saved could be used for housing (which they can't), they will receive no time travel or crowding benefits, and likely still not get into housing. The only people winning here are NIMBYs and urbanistic delusionals.


https://i.imgur.com/P0cHbSZ.png?1

Wow way to trick people with that last question.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

to participate you have to sign away your life. no thanks.

I'm already on PlaceSpeak so I went ahead and filled in the survey with strongly pro-Skytrain responses.

[Migrant_Coconut]

#3 is pretty shady too. Recall the TransLink report.

The cost of this extension west of Arbutus Street, roughly seven kms in length, is estimated between $3.3 billion and $3.8 billion in 2018 dollars. When adjusted to inflation for a 2030 completion, costs rise to between $4.1 billion and $4.8 billion.

However, it is important to note that all total cost estimates for every technology and route option includes a contingency ranging from 40% to 60% of actual project costs.

So whoever it was took the "60% cost overrun, plus 11 years' inflation" figure and made it look like that'd be the basic cost in 2018 dollars. It's as transparent as it is dishonest.

I did say "Agree" to #4, but not because two streetcars is a better idea - because the operating profit from the Broadway extension can fund more transit service in other parts of the city. If somebody decides to spin that too, they can kiss my —.

Originally Posted by SpongeG

to participate you have to sign away your life. no thanks.

The personal data (age, race, address) is more to do with making sure you're not a sockpuppet. It's not like Hardwick and Condon are going to hire a camera crew and show up at your door this Saturday.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The personal data (age, race, address) is more to do with making sure you're not a sockpuppet. It's not like Hardwick and Condon are going to hire a camera crew and show up at your door this Saturday.

I thought this information was used to weight survey responses to fit the population profile measured in the census. If your survey responses are 75% men and 25% women, then you give each woman's response 3x the weight to make the results representative of a 50/50 gender balance, which is the real gender ratio in the population. Weights can be used with income, gender, race, education, the neighbourhood that you live in, etc.

[dleung]

What kind of — leading survey questions are these? Trying to pit Transportation against affordable housing... that's as asinine as suggesting "yes you are thirsty, but don't forget you are also feverish, so how bout we give you less water, and use the rest of the water to splash your forehead?"

The things work in different currencies. The first ailment uses water efficiently, the other could've been solved with an ice pack. Transit is fixed through capital investments, affordable housing is fixed through policy. Especially with the way they build them in this town with artificially-low densities surrounded by higher-density market buildings... makes one think they didn't have to cost taxpayers $300k per unit if they managed their own land half as well as a private developer.