Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[officedweller]

WRT the Blenheim LRT stop, I suspect (without any evidence) that would have been added to cater to the street level 'charm' of LRT
versus having a non-stop LRT freeway down the middle of Broadway
(ie reflecting the differences that may result in as "as-built" LRT versus an "as-built" SkyTrain - they wouldn't necessarily be the same, which messes up comparisons)

PS - the biggest 'WTF?!?' from that McElhanney report is considering/even mentioning South Vancouver for an OMC.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by santak003

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.

Not sure where the transfer penalty comes from, but the bus comparison is spot on - the 99 B-Line already arrives consistently every 3-5 minutes at rush hour - save an incident that'd ground all surface transit - so you're not really gaining anything in frequency/reliability on Broadway. Hence the frequent "B-Line on rails" rhetoric, because the only real advantage is the tram being slightly bigger.

If that block is the one I'm thinking of, there's no way in hell you could fit a 4-car train on Alma. The two intersections are clogged enough as it is with the buses and every lane open!

Methinks you can blame Patrick Condon-itis for that one. The ideology behind the streetcar argument includes closer-spaced train stops and slower trains that (somehow?) grow tighter communities/encourage shorter commutes/prevent islands of condo towers... but mostly just look real pretty like Europe's do.

[officedweller]

I think the transfer penalty is the consequence of averaging various times of day.
i.e. Canada Line has 20 minute frequencies late at night versus 1.5 minute frequencies at rush hour.
If the consultants did not weight those times with passenger volumes, it could end up skewed to the longer side.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

At least there's a huge employment and education complex on Point Grey, one that's significant enough to have a half-dozen jam-packed bus routes running to it. It's hard for me to see that happening down the Arbutus corridor any time soon, precisely because of that same strong opposition to densification in the area. An area that's well served with a single, non-articulated trolley that runs every 10 minutes during the peak of rush hour.

I keep seeing posts that salivate over the transit possibilities of the Arbutus corridor. But you don't build rapid transit because you happen to have land available, you build it because you've exhausted all the cheaper options to move the necessary volume of people. The Broadway corridor has that need, the area around Arbutus does not and will not for a long time.

The 16 has pass ups and is the 5th busiest bus on translink network by average weekday ridership. It's part of the frequent transit network. Arbutus and Broadway is one of the few places where FTN's intersect. LRT would be the next upgrade path.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-2019-ridership-statistics

But I would be remiss not to point out that 4 out of the 5 busiest bus lines all go to UBC. Something needs to be done. It's over capacity by a mile. It's probably delaying development.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yeah, that's what I figured you meant. And I get the concept of future-proofing, it makes sense. But I still think it's going to be generations before we see anything built down the Arbutus corridor.

You might see something north of the arbutus station. Feeder lines. I'm not saying underground.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by santak003

The 16 has pass ups and is the 5th busiest bus on translink network by average weekday ridership. It's part of the frequent transit network.

Ridership which would fall off a cliff when most of its UBC riders switch to it and the 99. Without students and staff, the 16 goes back to being quiet - there's almost nothing else on 16th to drive transit demand. Ditto the other feeder routes.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by officedweller

WRT the Blenheim LRT stop, I suspect (without any evidence) that would have been added to cater to the street level 'charm' of LRT
versus having a non-stop LRT freeway down the middle of Broadway
(ie reflecting the differences that may result in as "as-built" LRT versus an "as-built" SkyTrain - they wouldn't necessarily be the same, which messes up comparisons)

PS - the biggest 'WTF?!?' from that McElhanney report is considering/even mentioning South Vancouver for an OMC.

The cost for combo 1 lrt for ROW's and for the OMC was 300 million. That seems like quite a bit. False Creek Flats has been the answer to the question of OMC from every other consultant to boot.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the transfer penalty is the consequence of averaging various times of day.
i.e. Canada Line has 20 minute frequencies late at night versus 1.5 minute frequencies at rush hour.
If the consultants did not weight those times with passenger volumes, it could end up skewed to the longer side.

It's a flat 10 minute penalty by the model. Models are models. They shouldn't make all their arguments from it when it isn't quite real yet is my point. It seems on the surface to skew their results with the LRT option 1 vs combo 1 results. Straight surface track from arbutus to UBC is slammed down, but I suspect it's the model.

Running large trains at high frequencies down the corridor (with 8 times the capacity of the bus) may not be ideal, but the city is built for streetcar and as such the block width is uniform 160m all the way from arbutus to UBC. With one exception: Macdonald to Stephens.

It's a perfect grid.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not sure where the transfer penalty comes from, but the bus comparison is spot on - the 99 B-Line already arrives consistently every 3-5 minutes at rush hour - save an incident that'd ground all surface transit - so you're not really gaining anything in frequency/reliability on Broadway. Hence the frequent "B-Line on rails" rhetoric, because the only real advantage is the tram being slightly bigger.

If that block is the one I'm thinking of, there's no way in hell you could fit a 4-car train on Alma. The two intersections are clogged enough as it is with the buses and every lane open!
.

Streetcars/LRTs beat Rapid buses mostly because they have more capacity per train. In this case, it would be operating in it's own ROW in the median, but still having to stop at street lights.

The Alma block is a good point, but the Vancouver street network is built for streetcars and the blocks are all 160m. Seattle runs 4 car trains. I mean the skytrain is nothing but an underground lrt and it has 5 car trains.

Not saying this is ideal, but the McElhanney mentions one intersection and makes it seem that there would be many more where you couldn't have 4 car trains. But it's the only one. Alma would be another consideration, but it was not brought up.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I keep seeing posts that salivate over the transit possibilities of the Arbutus corridor. But you don't build rapid transit because you happen to have land available, you build it because you've exhausted all the cheaper options to move the necessary volume of people. The Broadway corridor has that need, the area around Arbutus does not and will not for a long time.

It's salivating over the possibility of building efficient neighbourhoods, where transit mode share could be as high as 50%, as we have seen along the Expo Line. And salivating over the right of way, which would make building an Arbutus line far cheaper than Skytrain.

Running a city is like running a business, and that right of way represents a low cost opportunity to attract huge economic activity to the city.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ridership which would fall off a cliff when most of its UBC riders switch to it and the 99. Without students and staff, the 16 goes back to being quiet - there's almost nothing else on 16th to drive transit demand. Ditto the other feeder routes.

There's no publicly available data to support that, but I'm not so sure. The 14 and the 7 are in the top 20 and both are North South lines. I used to take the 7 and I take the 16 downtown. Not many get off at Broadway, but I don't go in the early morning crush. 16 is busy going downtown too. No statistics, but I'm not sure things would fall off a cliff though.

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...k/2019-TSPR/TSPR_2019_Summary_Tables.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by santak003

Streetcars/LRTs beat Rapid buses mostly because they have more capacity per train. In this case, it would be operating in it's own ROW in the median, but still having to stop at street lights.

The Alma block is a good point, but the Vancouver street network is built for streetcars and the blocks are all 160m. Seattle runs 4 car trains. I mean the skytrain is nothing but an underground lrt and it has 5 car trains.

Not saying this is ideal, but the McElhanney mentions one intersection and makes it seem that there would be many more where you couldn't have 4 car trains. But it's the only one. Alma would be another consideration, but it was not brought up.

That's why it's a bad idea in most of Metro Van: you're spending near-SkyTrain levels of money to get RapidBus levels of service... and you're losing the buses' flexibility. On-road trains are in an unfortunate "master of nothing" position in most of North America.

Key word, "underground." Or over-ground. Vancouver was built for 1-car trams going at 20 km/h... and horse carriages. Times have changed, and so have the streets.
Worth noting is that Link Light Rail is lagging behind SkyTrain in terms of ridership, even with Seattle's generous grade separation.

Could've been quantified better, but just because you can run a 4-car surface train on Broadway doesn't mean you should. It'd be a very tight squeeze even when it clears the intersections.

Originally Posted by santak003

There's no publicly available data to support that, but I'm not so sure. The 14 and the 7 are in the top 20 and both are North South lines. I used to take the 7 and I take the 16 downtown. Not many get off at Broadway, but I don't go in the early morning crush. 16 is busy going downtown too. No statistics, but I'm not sure things would fall off a cliff though.

Sorry, misread the post, and got the the 16 (Arbutus) mixed up with the 33 (16th). Very embarrassing.

Yes, there's demand for a downtown-Arbutus route. Fitch's route on 16th, not so much.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think the transfer penalty is the consequence of averaging various times of day.
i.e. Canada Line has 20 minute frequencies late at night versus 1.5 minute frequencies at rush hour.
If the consultants did not weight those times with passenger volumes, it could end up skewed to the longer side.

It's all skewed against anything other than skytrain to UBC. I'm all for the right solution and engineering, but there should be more engineering reports and differing opinions for something like this. The time horizon should be changed to 2100 and I'd agree, but so far I'm not sold based on this engineering report. I don't know what's best to be honest and this report only muddies the waters more. Maybe the solution suggested of skytrain to UBC is the best one anyways...but that's not the point.

"Any alternative other than RRT would require a transfer from one transit sub mode to another. This carries a significant
time penalty owing to the inconvenience of getting off a transit vehicle, travelling to another platform, waiting for the next
vehicle and then trying to find a seat or space to board the vehicle. The transportation demand model weighs this
transfer at approximately a 10-minute penalty which has a clear negative effect on ridership in addition to travel time
and capacity. This penalty is applied uniformly across the region including trips transferring from any transit sub mode
including bus, SeaBus, SkyTrain and others."



We are building everything for students. Students are our future, but everything is being built and designed for WB traffic for them:

"Rail to UBC Rapid Transit Study | 2121-00342-00
Prepared for TransLink
Page 67
on an assumed 2% annual growth rate, consistent with observed growth between 2008 and 2017, while 2045
projections were based on a 1% annual growth rate between 2030 and 2045. This is the primary variable that is driving
ridership increases on the rapid transit alternatives to/from campus"


We are already at 50k riders, so quite clearly this model (which all decisions are based on and maybe they shouldn't be) is not an accurate representation of reality, other than it does not allow for some queuing to occur and assumes all people will switch to other buses and then the car if they ever wait in line. :

"Modelled daily ridership estimates for the Arbutus to UBC segment are shown in Figure 8-9. Estimates for the B-Line
(BAU) transit scenario indicate that the B-Line will experience roughly 24,500 daily boardings in 2030."

--but we are at 50k already?




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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by santak003

We are already at 50k riders, so quite clearly this model (which all decisions are based on and maybe they shouldn't be) is not an accurate representation of reality, other than it does not allow for some queuing to occur and assumes all people will switch to other buses and then the car if they ever wait in line. :

"Modelled daily ridership estimates for the Arbutus to UBC segment are shown in Figure 8-9. Estimates for the B-Line
(BAU) transit scenario indicate that the B-Line will experience roughly 24,500 daily boardings in 2030."

--but we are at 50k already?

Because right now, only ~40% of 99 riders get off at UBC. 55,900 x 0.40 = 22,360.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because right now, only ~40% of 99 riders get off at UBC. 55,900 x 0.40 = 22,360.

I somewhat agree that that number might not be accurate, considering that the expansion of the Millenium Line to Arbutus might make the 99 from Arbutus look more appealing than the 84, the 25, the 33, and possibly even the R4.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I somewhat agree that that number might not be accurate, considering that the expansion of the Millenium Line to Arbutus might make the 99 from Arbutus look more appealing than the 84, the 25, the 33, and possibly even the R4.

Agreed, but I'm pretty certain that RRT-induced mode transfer is beyond the scope of the study.

[Lexus]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I somewhat agree that that number might not be accurate, considering that the expansion of the Millenium Line to Arbutus might make the 99 from Arbutus look more appealing than the 84, the 25, the 33, and possibly even the R4.

Its already faster to get on Millennium Brentwood to Commercial and then onto 99 vs 25 from Brentwood to UBC.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Klazu

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

i really hope we see 5-car MKIII trains. and 80m, 100m expandable platforms.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Lexus

Its already faster to get on Millennium Brentwood to Commercial and then onto 99 vs 25 from Brentwood to UBC.

Yes, but someone living around Riley Park-Little Mountain might have a different view.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's why it's a bad idea in most of Metro Van: you're spending near-SkyTrain levels of money to get RapidBus levels of service... and you're losing the buses' flexibility. On-road trains are in an unfortunate "master of nothing" position in most of North America.

Key word, "underground." Or over-ground. Vancouver was built for 1-car trams going at 20 km/h... and horse carriages. Times have changed, and so have the streets.
Worth noting is that Link Light Rail is lagging behind SkyTrain in terms of ridership, even with Seattle's generous grade separation.

Could've been quantified better, but just because you can run a 4-car surface train on Broadway doesn't mean you should. It'd be a very tight squeeze even when it clears the intersections.

At this point, I think I agree with you. I've been reading and re-reading various documents and capacity constraints within the entire transit system. Some points:

1. r4 41 rapidbus will obtain 4400 pphpd. That seems like a good test bed for the 99 to become a rapid bus and achieve more or less the same and that will buy a lot of time for the eventual build out of the skytrain.
2. From council meeting minutes, it is obvious that the skytrain to ubc is not a regional priority anymore. This is because they mention that funding must come from the municipal level (aka not regional priority). Since UBC has tonnes of land and the university is in the black because of land management, maybe this will be the case. If they don't use federal funds, they don't have to worry about rentals and can build all the condos they want. For federal funding, I'm guessing you have to have latent demand already, which is clearly not the case for the UBC skytrain.
3. It's clear from the CP rail sale, that COV lost that battle. It's also clear that it will be a streetcar with a one car train travelling slowly at 8 minute headways into downtown.
4. The first phase of the streetcar from Arbutus to Main St Science world may come before the UBC skytrain. It's between a local bus and and rapid transit. So, on it's own it won't have the development potential and is more like medium density or missing middle build out. However from Arbutus to Main, it will beat the 99 b-line ridership (both directions) and will alleviate the most congested part of the system (stadium-chinatown to commercial) and connect all three rapid transit lines
5. The Jan 2019 document on UBC rapid transit study is a sham of assumptions, but translink is not answerable to anyone and can never be legally punished (and suprisingly I find people commenting my exact same sentiments throughout the web about how translink can continuously create documents with different assumptions and not have to legally worry about it). However, it appears to me that due to #2 that anything but RapidBus is off the table. Meaning that COV is stable and predictable and it's more about politics (see point #3), but do I share the regions vision?

::Having said all that, it seems that the eventual answer is Rapid Bus from Arbutus for now, but I'm guessing it will be Skytrain in the future (but RapidBus buys a lot of time and planning for whatever technology is chosen and it will likely be underground and rapid).

So, even if the process seems political, I think the answer is right. RapidBus from Arbutus come 2025, and a streetcar type service for the corridor (high frequency, low capacity, low speed) in the future. It's right because we should follow demand and not create it. It's a risk that is unnecessary. The eventual build out of the lands has not occurred in UBC and there should be a long planning process for integrate transportation and land use and funding. I like streetcars and I think having a european slow moving one down the corridor and into downtown is the right approach for the city and I'm glad it was forced into it by CP. It seems safer and more manageable for the city.

What will be interesting is the capacity of the Arbutus Corridor from Milton Parcel to Arbutus station. They can run really long trains if they want as they are not constrained by street crossing. They can get large capacity, moving very slowly, if they wanted to. Initially it will be a one car train I suspect.

Because of point #3, I don't think the arbutus corridor will convert to rapid transit for a very long time.

In terms of Broadway becoming a great street, I think they will make it look more like greektown and have some very high buildings (28 stories is not the cap). Especially between Laurel to Cambie. Downtown goes up the broadway and between Main and Granville (the Urban Core that is part of downtown), so it comes over the bridges now. Broadway will change in the Central part of it and quite a bit.

Having said all that, I'm happy with where I think the city is going. It seems to make sense. I share the vision. I guess we will see parts of this vision mid next year. I think what will be interesting is how translink eventually becomes a player in the development field. How this pans out for Vancouver compared to the global asian context will be interesting.

It's interesting that they are choosing a streetcar type of service for the corridor all the way to Milton Parcel. It can still be high volume. Just make it an 8 car train that moves slow. You have the space for that.