Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Migrant_Coconut]

Thanks, but in that case, the switches were already there. I'm arguing that it's near-impossible to go in and add those over the span of a long weekend. Doesn't matter how much prep work you do for it.

[officedweller]

Yeah, that was to show the sidewall structure that you would be blasting through to add a spur switch and the length of sidewall and track involved assuming a gradual verge.
The main issue is still service interruption.
Moreover, for now, it's the planning and placement to allow the future configuration that is most important.

[swimmer_spe]

If an Arbutus spur is desired, then it should be done with the construction to UBC. Mind you, I doubt there is enough traffic to warrant a Skytrain.

[s211]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am guessing you have never seen one of those crossings.

Swing and a miss, but thanks for trying. When the Olympics add jumping to conclusions to the roster, I'll let you know.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Service interruptions.
Presumably, an Arbutus line would be built after the UBC extension, so Arbutus Station would be a through station rather than a terminus at that point.
You would also need to demolish the tunnel wall, so if they are installed early maybe knockout walls could be installed as well.
An X crossover would probably be in a special structure rather than bored tunnel, so it could be factored in.
... but you need to have the foresight to place the x crossover in the correct location to facilitate it (not too close to the east of Arbutus station and not west of it.

From Google Maps, VCC appears to have an X and an extra tail track.

Spared no expense on that line!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by s211

Swing and a miss, but thanks for trying. When the Olympics add jumping to conclusions to the roster, I'll let you know.

I was trying to be nice and not call you an idiot. Would you require further instruction as to how they work and why they are good for all users?

[s211]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I was trying to be nice and not call you an idiot. Would you require further instruction as to how they work and why they are good for all users?

I know how they — work, and have personally watched them operate in the flesh. But hey, thanks for the additional push to add you to my ignore list.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

From Google Maps, VCC appears to have an X and an extra tail track.

Spared no expense on that line!

I think that tail track is used to store maintenace equipment.
There's been speculation that the spur was supposed to eventually lead to a new storage yard,
but the railways have not left the area and land wasn't available from BNSF.

Plus there's more precedent for installing switches for future spurs:
- @ Lougheed Town Centre for the PMC/Evergreen extension
- @ Coquitlam Central for the PoCo extension

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think that tail track is used to store maintenace equipment.
There's been speculation that the spur was supposed to eventually lead to a new storage yard,
but the railways have not left the area and land wasn't available from BNSF.

Plus there's more precedent for installing switches for future spurs:
- @ Lougheed Town Centre for the PMC/Evergreen extension
- @ Coquitlam Central for the PoCo extension

I couldn't find anything about that track segment but it doesn't seem like it was going to be a storage yard.

Mr. Francl advised the Finning site would be the next station site, and that they had undertaken some preliminary work with the City and with Finning’s consultants to identify a station location immediately adjacent to the park in the triangle centre of their property - approximately 900 m between the 2 stations.
Ms. St. Michel noted although much of the area had been rezoned to I-3, the Finning site was a comprehensive development zone, allowing for high tech users, hotels and an additional amount of retail which wouldn’t be allowable under the I-3 zoning. The City had also had discussion with CN regarding their interest in possibly subdividing some 50+ acres, and that the City would also require approximately 4 acres of dedicated land for park space, i.e., about 10% of what the area to be subdivided. It was also noted that the Greenway, once down to the Flats, might use the Finning lands as a temporary route and in the long term may cross through the CN lands.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/urban-design-panel-minutes-jul-26-00.pdf

The RTPO has acquired the property on the north west corner of Clark and 6th Avenue (the Jessie's Moving site) for construction purposes. After construction, as with all land not required for the system, the RTPO intends to dispose of the residual property. The RTPO intends to work towards finding a new owner who will redevelop the site. The site is of particular interest to the City because it will be crucial in providing access to the Keith Drive entrance to the station or to a second station house at Clark Drive. As well, vehicle/parking access to the residual site will be from the station forecourt.

https://council.vancouver.ca/010220/Tt2.htm

More on the decision making between the underground VCC station vs the chosen north alignment:

https://council.vancouver.ca/990727/RR1.HTM

[Alex Mackinnon]

Due to rather exciting news, I'm going to recuse myself from most of the discussions in this thread

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Due to rather exciting news, I'm going to recuse myself from most of the discussions in this thread

Build us a good tunnel please!

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Due to rather exciting news, I'm going to recuse myself from most of the discussions in this thread

So that means plenty of pictures instead of discussions, right?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Due to rather exciting news, I'm going to recuse myself from most of the discussions in this thread

Get digging!

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

So that means plenty of pictures instead of discussions, right?

Only when allowed. That's the caveat.

[officedweller]

Congrats!

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I couldn't find anything about that track segment but it doesn't seem like it was going to be a storage yard.

Can't recall where I saw the reference.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This is why building the entire extension in 1 go makes more sense. You are not building, then tearing down stuff.

In the Jan 2019 report on UBC skytrain extension, 4 or 5 different major projects were looked at to validate how this current extension and the planning for it, add up. Of the major risks and best practices, one of the major ones was phasing major projects. It's a best practice to phase things in to see what went wrong etc (cost overruns, change in plans). There is a saying that waiting for a final decision is a good plan, instead of finalizing it up front.

However, I don't know the extra cost. They wanted to do Langley in one go for example.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Surface transit requires operators for each train, which makes it too expensive to run trains frequently during off-peak hours.

There's a lot of talk about transit times, which are certainly important, but frequency is just as important. Having to wait 10 or 15 minutes for an off-peak LRT train makes the system far less user friendly than RRT trains arriving every 4 or 5 minutes all day long.

Since most people will access the route by transferring to or from it, those wait times become significant when looking at the overall transit time for a typical trip. When you add that to the faster, congestion-proof transit times of a grade separated route it's pretty obvious which one most people will prefer.

A grade separated solution will attract more ridership, justifying the increased construction cost and giving us a better system.

I certainly agree with the logic, but the Jan 2019 Rail to UBC study is flawed. It believes what you said and so do I, but the model used is assuming that lrt is the same as a bus and that there is a 10 minute penalty to transfer. It is why their combo 1 option fares much better than the the option to have an LRT straight from the end of Arbutus to UBC.

To say that someone will treat the LRT transfer with high frequencies and good reliability, the same as a bus is not the right approach and they should have done sensitivity analysis around their use of 1.65 transfers/trip average and their 10 minute transfer penalty, before announcing the recommendation of underground tunneled skytrain (McElhanney consulting).

They also picked the only intersection in the perfectly uniform 160m length blocks to say that only a 2 car train could be used, when 4 could be used theoretically and this would take the above ground rail option to have higher capacity than the canada line.

They also added one stop (Blenheim) and they should have done a sensitivity analysis on the stop to see what would happen if they made it comparable to the underground skytrain option.

I don't know if having a very frequent above ground long train is the best option at all, I just don't like the way the report appears to be biased. Maybe politics is behind things as everyone says. I don't like the bias of the report.

Jan 2019: "Rail to UBC Rapid Transit Study"
McElhanney Consulting
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...9_01_24_technical_report_rail_to_ubc.pdf

[santak003]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

To which a SkyTrain advocate would counter with "16th doesn't have Broadway's growth potential or ridership;" all it has is underground utilities whose relocation would drive the costs right back up to the billions. That's how Adam Fitch's plan got shot down.

I was on one of his tours years ago. My neighbour innocently suggested it. I like LRT technology and we walked from Arbutus and Broadway down to granville island along the original arbutus corridor.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Anyone seen any mention of how many new trains we will get? Will Millennium Line finally see full size trains?

Bumping this since I didn't see anyone answer. I hope to see Mark III trains also on Millennium Line in the future.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Given the foot traffic in the Greektown area (and eventually the Point Grey Village/Jericho area), one could argue that even the minor intersections need to stay open. And City staff have said that they'd need to run trams the length of the block to meet demand.

Trams are a nice idea, but for the most part, their role in Metro Vancouver is met by the RapidBuses. Your best shot is a former rail corridor like Arbutus or Railway Avenue that doesn't have a lot of intersections to begin with, and even that's a maybe.

The Jan 2019 "Rail to UBC Rapid Transit Study" seems biased to me. I concur with your comments. But the study does not indicate a 100 year time horizon for planning and seems to suggest that a 2 car train is maximum because of the only intersection from Arbutus to UBC that is short (macdonald to stephens).

When it comes to volume, it's rapid bus, then tram, then underground (tram still really).


In terms of intersections. the report adds a Blenheim stop. When planning for lrt capacity, the distance between stops is the most important thing.

The Jan 2019 study shows the maximum capacity of the bus as being 25,000 daily average ridership and it's already at 50,000. So the model used is flawed. I would agree that pass ups and capacity is already being hit. But we are talking about students as the main driver of the volume as admitted in the same report and it's just WB early morning volume. By the year 2045, after doing sensitivity analysis of the land use in UBC, it was determined that it would impact EB traffic and this is not capacity constrained. Yes they can build big in UBC, but it's not the volume being planned for. Given a 100 year timeline (which the report is not doing), I would agree that things would be different and then this report makes more sense. I don't know what is right or wrong to be honest.

I agree with your comments and specifically agree with the link you provided, but the study parameters in the Jan 2019 report are not the same as the ones mentioned in the article: Namely full block size (4 car trains) and 100 year timeline.

I agree with this:

City staff have said

Not the seemingly biased report:

Jan 2019: Rail to UBC Rapid Transit Study
McElhanney Consulting
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...9_01_24_technical_report_rail_to_ubc.pdf