Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by santak003

The first phase of the streetcar from Arbutus to Main St Science world may come before the UBC skytrain. ... 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

It seems very unlikely to me that where would be much demand for people traveling from downtown to connect to the Millenium Line eastbound via a streetcar rather than the Canada or Expo lines. Or westbound for that matter...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Couple of small nitpicks.

Originally Posted by santak003

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.

Not necessarily, speed and frequency haven't been determined yet. Current plan calls for two tracks and a probable replacement of the 16 and 50 routes - either of which I doubt TransLink'd do for a mere tourist trolley.

Originally Posted by santak003

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)...

Politics or not (99% of the math checks out for most people), I'd be VERY wary of aligning with the "TL is corrupt" crowd, which from experience, has a lot of overlap with the "backseat-driving internet Karen" crowd. That path leads to the Dark Side.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It seems very unlikely to me that where would be much demand for people traveling from downtown to connect to the Millenium Line eastbound via a streetcar rather than the Canada or Expo lines. Or westbound for that matter...

I'm not sure why they seem to be making a round about way to head west. The busiest part of the network is from stadium-chinatown to commercial (in that direction). So one reason would be to pass the crush of people, especially if heading west.

Heading into the city, it is the prettiest way (from Main into downtown). It's like a roller coaster ride and it snakes around the viaducts and the buildings. Quite a nice view. When riding the rails, these things are thought about when planning.

I don't know the use cases of users and where they are going from and to or the future demographics of it either.

The streetcar will be pretty. Have you ever biked around lamey's road. It's quite a unique view of the city.

It will allow a build out of main st, olympic village and arbutus, with easy connections to the heavy lifting skytrain lines without overcrowding.

[santak003]

Some feedback:



Not necessarily, speed and frequency haven't been determined yet. Current plan calls for two tracks and a probable replacement of the 16 and 50 routes - either of which I doubt TransLink'd do for a mere tourist trolley. [/QUOTE]

The point of me writing it was to align with the "top-down" model of thinking. It's more or less pre-determined is my thinking for some things. It will be 400-800m stops. That makes it a streetcar. It's something more than a local bus, but less than rapid transit. That's the current vision as predicated why the media I've been reading (the only accessible documents we have are via the internet). These things can change, but for some reason I don't think it will in this case. That's my guess.

If you read this document, it basically shows how politics does exist and it's not the dark side. Expectation of 0% politics would be the dark side.

https://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/pf_headline.asp?id=7737

I really don't know in some cases if democracy is relevant when choosing how to plan a city. Is top-down thinking good in some cases? Do people really know what volume is? It's clear to me that they don't know or care about volume and trust people to do what is right. So your next comment about how the math checks out doesn't make sense to me at all.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Politics or not (99% of the math checks out for most people), I'd be VERY wary of aligning with the "TL is corrupt" crowd, which from experience, has a lot of overlap with the "backseat-driving internet Karen" crowd. That path leads to the Dark Side.

There are several things that are only clear when reading the document: 1. All volume is student volume. Capacity side is all students. 2. The capacity issue occurs WB in the morning. 3. There's a uniform 10 minute penalty for all transfers. 4. It's impossible to validate all the assumptions of the model w.r.t. how it determines when people will walk/bike/drive, but all the decision making is on the model with no double checks to reality: Does this make any sense as to good planning? I mean, there are far too many assumptions and all of the document is basing it on a model. That's a sham. I came about this independently, but other people also were advertising this to the world:

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/e...eds-to-reconsider-broadway-subway-to-ubc

"The Broadway subway line to UBC, with the appropriate acronym the “BS-Line,” has been accepted by Vancouver council, based on a consultant’s report some question as being more of a political document than a technical report. Within a week of release and with no public consultation, only two councillors voted against it, Colleen Hardwick and Jean Swanson."

To base things on a model without testing and then put the whole cities decision making on it is not a good idea. On the surface I agree with it when I read it and it was chronicled for me in the Vancouver Sun etc. However I decided to read it a little more and decided that it was not a valid engineering document IMHO. I then started reading some commentary on it and they were saying the same thing as me. Now you can decide to slam something because you don't agree with where things are going. Anyone can. You can drop your ego and say: Would I do this and bet everything on this document without checking. But they came to the same conclusion as me and I was basically just trying to see if the assumptions were valid. I would never base final decisions on a model without testing. No company I've ever worked for would either. What's the cost of that mistake?

Here's a comment from someone that sounds reasonable that says the same thing:

https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/a-bro...bc-is-not-a-regional-priority-1.23784368

[[["Notice no one else in the world builds with ART Movia metro or has copied the Canada line nonsense? No?

BC's AG David Eby, told me in a letter that TransLink was immune to investigation and or legal intervention; in short they can lie their teeth off and not be censured for it.

"The problem with TransLink is that you can never believe what it says; TransLink never produces a report based on the same set of assumptions."]]]

It is unreasonable to expect 0% politics too. So not sure what you mean by backseat driving and politics. I don't expect 100% politics or 0% politics. I find that Vancouver, you can sometimes figure out where things are going by reading what you can find online and basic understanding of capacity. I don't know what I don't know...

There should be many checks with this sort of thing. I'm assuming we don't have rocket scientists writing this stuff...but we do have lots of experience. I haven't seen too many planning documents out there, but I haven't read any of them basing decisions on a model that was not real and had not been used before.


What I think will happen is that there will be another rapid bus from Arbutus to UBC> With R4 41 giving 4400 pphpd, the Arbutus to UBC will fill the void in the capacity and the R4 41 is a good test bed. That's my guess as to what they are about to do.

UBC skytrain is not a regional priority and it shouldn't be. Capacity can be met with two rapid buses. That seems to me what they are planning to do.

I also think that it will be a low volume streetcar at some point. This document is from 2003 and everything word in it has come true:

https://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/pf_headline.asp?id=7737

I also think it will be a skytrain to UBC eventually.

So basically we should be looking at skytrain and streetcar integration at arbutus station when they build it. There should be both. It's not 0% politics.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Top-down planning doesn't always work, but bottom-up planning is even worse - everybody wants a line on their street, they want it first before anybody else's, and they know more than anybody else on the issue.

IMO TransLink's in kind of a happy medium between centralized and decentralized; occasionally, the mayors or province interferes (Corrigan with the Canada Line, Hepner's streetcar plan, etc etc) but then the politics involved are pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by santak003

That's a sham. I came about this independently, but other people also were advertising this to the world

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/e...eds-to-reconsider-broadway-subway-to-ubc

... To base things on a model without testing and then put the whole cities decision making on it is not a good idea. On the surface I agree with it when I read it and it was chronicled for me in the Vancouver Sun etc. However I decided to read it a little more and decided that it was not a valid engineering document IMHO. I then started reading some commentary on it and they were saying the same thing as me. Now you can decide to slam something because you don't agree with where things are going. Anyone can. You can drop your ego and say: Would I do this and bet everything on this document without checking. But they came to the same conclusion as me and I was basically just trying to see if the assumptions were valid. I would never base final decisions on a model without testing. No company I've ever worked for would either. What's the cost of that mistake?...

https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/a-bro...bc-is-not-a-regional-priority-1.23784368

Another reminder to stay away from the Karens and know-it-alls.

To bring you into the loop, Elizabeth Murphy, author of both your links, is a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 NIMBY who says/does/supports whatever so long as it reduces urban development into Point Grey... and who's kind of a dick. Colleen Hardwick is much the same... and Jean Swanson vetoes anything that's not social housing or co-ops.

And "zweisystem/Donald Malcolm Johnston/EvilEye/LewisNVillegas/Rail for the Valley/whichever sockpuppet he uses now" has been trolling the Vancouver news comments for ten years with erroneous copy-pasted information bashing TransLink. He wants them instead to build a superfast tram from Vancouver down the freight track to Chilliwack, which almost everybody considers a Very Bad Idea.
No, SkyTrain's not proprietary. No, LRT can't go at 100 km/h or carry 15,000+ people, not without a tunnel. No, the 99 B-Line can't have 60-second frequencies. Yes, there are dozens of cities all over the world that use driverless trains, LIMs or both (among many, many other garbage arguments). You learn to either shut him up or ignore him.

As for the study, it's not the first - TransLink did one in 1999, and they and KPMG did two in 2013, and there were open houses in 2017. Unlike the whole Surrey First LRT clustershag we had a while ago, neither the experts nor the public have ever expressed interest in anything save the favoured option; the doubt you're hearing comes from a super-loud minority of special interest groups.

Originally Posted by santak003

There are several things that are only clear when reading the document: 1. All volume is student volume. Capacity side is all students. 2. The capacity issue occurs WB in the morning. 3. There's a uniform 10 minute penalty for all transfers. 4. It's impossible to validate all the assumptions of the model w.r.t. how it determines when people will walk/bike/drive, but all the decision making is on the model with no double checks to reality: Does this make any sense as to good planning? I mean, there are far too many assumptions and all of the document is basing it on a model.

It would indeed be weird to base such a big decision on just one model... yet as mentioned, it isn't just that one. TransLink and KPMG drew the same conclusion: a metro line to replace a high-demand route on a high-demand corridor will get the same kind of demand itself. Kinda hard to politicize common sense.

This argument we're having is part of why they're stopping at Arbutus for now (that, and money): if it's still busy, they've disproven the skeptics and now we've got a case for UBC; if it calms down, we can wait and see. Either way, I think we can agree that a tram isn't the right alternative.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As for the study, it's not the first - TransLink did one in 1999, and they and KPMG did two in 2013, and there were open houses in 2017. Unlike the whole Surrey First LRT clustershag we had a while ago, neither the experts nor the public have ever expressed interest in anything save the favoured option; the doubt you're hearing comes from a super-loud minority of special interest groups.

It would indeed be weird to base such a big decision on just one model... yet as mentioned, it isn't just that one. TransLink and KPMG drew the same conclusion: a metro line to replace a high-demand route on a high-demand corridor will get the same kind of demand itself. Kinda hard to politicize common sense.

This argument we're having is part of why they're stopping at Arbutus for now (that, and money): if it's still busy, they've disproven the skeptics and now we've got a case for UBC; if it calms down, we can wait and see. Either way, I think we can agree that a tram isn't the right alternative.

Thanks for so comprehensively explaining why we're where we are. The extension to Arbutus is desperately needed to link the existing lines and to serve the area of greatest employment and population density. In turn the City of Vancouver are (slowly) considering the increased densities that are justified now transit won't be restricted to an over-full bus network. The money is finally in place to make that addition to the system work.

Now that has been finally tied up, it makes sense to consider the final leg to UBC. The University have indicated a willingness to put some funding in. The changed status of the Jericho Lands, and they're future development make an additional factor for an augmented link beyond rapid bus. The tram-down-the-middle-of-the-street option favoured by a few westsiders like Patrick Condon have some serious physical and economic impacts on West Broadway, and would have major costs that he discounts. It's also barely faster than a bus could be. There are a few very loud voices who are fearful of any further extension because of the impacts they think it would have on their cozy low-density neighbourhood (probably correctly).

The Arbutus line (and its continuation to Downtown) is a red herring in terms of rapid transit. Unless I've missed something, Translink have so far failed to indicate any interest in building it. It's a City of Vancouver idea, that up to now has really been about acquiring and reserving the necessary rights of way (through the Olympic Village, down the median of Pacific Boulevard, up Arbutus, for example). If CP had been able to retain and build on the Arbutus right-of-way, the whole idea was dead in the water. The protracted skirmishes were finally settled to retain the transportation potential.

It's always been seen as a surface tram-like system, never rapid transit. It's not meant to be super fast, or very high capacity, or complicated and expensive to build, (eventually). It's intended to compliment the existing network, and would replace only a small part of the existing bus network. There's a bonus, as the City's acquisition of the line significantly simplifies the construction of the Arbutus extension. Tunneling under the tracks, if CP had retained them and insisted they were still a viable railway, could have been much more expensive, and complicated. Now that crossing is straightforward.

[santak003]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Top-down planning doesn't always work, but bottom-up planning is even worse - everybody wants a line on their street, they want it first before anybody else's, and they know more than anybody else on the issue.

IMO TransLink's in kind of a happy medium between centralized and decentralized; occasionally, the mayors or province interferes (Corrigan with the Canada Line, Hepner's streetcar plan, etc etc) but then the politics involved are pretty obvious.

It would indeed be weird to base such a big decision on just one model... yet as mentioned, it isn't just that one. TransLink and KPMG drew the same conclusion: a metro line to replace a high-demand route on a high-demand corridor will get the same kind of demand itself. Kinda hard to politicize common sense.

This argument we're having is part of why they're stopping at Arbutus for now (that, and money): if it's still busy, they've disproven the skeptics and now we've got a case for UBC; if it calms down, we can wait and see. Either way, I think we can agree that a tram isn't the right alternative.

I would say that overall, the COV has better planning than my native Toronto, by a long shot. Nothing ever gets built there to what you would consider common sense. At least not from when I left (2005) and came to Vancouver.

However, the latest UBC study was not well thought out. It seemed to me that there was knowledge that there wouldn't be appetite to go to UBC and no funding, so why not slam the tram line down. That does nothing to help the skytrain argument. The previous documents you mention don't have numbers and facts, just words that perhaps capacity will double on opening day. I personally think that it will go up more than expected, but at least have some systems around the world and what happened there...not just one example of the Canada line.

I don't know if I agree that Tram is not an option, but I do think that two rapidbuses are the best approach for now. Following demand is easier than creating it. I just want to know what the mostly top-down is going to do. It seems easy enough to fool people. Top-down is thinking skytrain, skytrain, skytrain and underground baby..all the way!

That document and it's fluffy predecessors do not have me convinced that a tram will not work. How could it? Common sense seems to sway me in that direction, but I haven't got a common sense document as to why as of yet. Just a bunch of words in a document, using a model that it shouldn't. It's the only document with numbers and figures for capacity and for some reason I think it is fatally flawed. Can't put my finger on it just yet. It slams the tram. So why believe any of it. Some of it is true and some isn't. But I can't tell at this moment. I'm not a transport engineer and am not involved in city planning and I definitely don't know how to build things that people like or dislike, but I would expect that there would be people who could put a convincing argument together.

I mean, some of it you cannot possibly create a document about. Like maybe (not sure) why you should connect your highest education level university with the highest speed transit you have. There is the concept of density and intelligence that I agree with, but how do you prove such a thing, without using mathematics from nuclear physics?

I would expect more along the lines from the capacity side since it seems like you should be able to disprove capacity and the latest document in Jan 2019 tries to, but I don't trust it.

So basically that leaves me with just accepting top-down and seeing where things will go. For now, rapid bus to UBC along broadway and 41. Hopefully they measure the hell out of the effects of these changes to see if what they are expecting is happening (slowly or otherwise).

I'll see if I can pick apart more arguments in that Jan 2019 document as time goes by.

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's fine, we can agree to disagree. Not having an Arbutus extension yet creates a lot of unknowns that could go either way.

Originally Posted by santak003

The previous documents you mention don't have numbers and facts, just words that perhaps capacity will double on opening day. I personally think that it will go up more than expected, but at least have some systems around the world and what happened there...not just one example of the Canada line.

If you meant ridership, TransLink's going on the assumption that it'll be a 4-5x increase like for the Canada Line over the 98 B-Line; we had a similar 3-4x increase for the Evergreen over the 97, so we've kinda gotten used to TransLink's estimates being lowballs. IMO a fivefold increase is entirely possible now that Central Broadway is Bloor in all but built form.

If you did mean capacity though, doubling is a fact. A SkyTrain can carry 5-10x as many riders as an articulated bus.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TransLink and KPMG drew the same conclusion: a metro line to replace a high-demand route on a high-demand corridor will get the same kind of demand itself. Kinda hard to politicize common sense.

This argument we're having is part of why they're stopping at Arbutus for now (that, and money): if it's still busy, they've disproven the skeptics and now we've got a case for UBC; if it calms down, we can wait and see. Either way, I think we can agree that a tram isn't the right alternative.

Another misconception on the Skytrain to UBC that I feel is perpetuated to the public is that it is an extension fully dedicated to just students. Last time I checked UBC is another large employment sector for people of all trades, and it also has a lot of tourist attractions like the Museum of Anthropology. Although I am not denying that it would mostly be used by students (of which there is a huge student population commuting there), I do strongly believe that the demographic that would use the Arbutus > UBC sections is much more diverse than what mainstream channels are telling us.

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's always been seen as a surface tram-like system, never rapid transit. It's not meant to be super fast, or very high capacity, or complicated and expensive to build, (eventually). It's intended to compliment the existing network, and would replace only a small part of the existing bus network. There's a bonus, as the City's acquisition of the line significantly simplifies the construction of the Arbutus extension. Tunneling under the tracks, if CP had retained them and insisted they were still a viable railway, could have been much more expensive, and complicated. Now that crossing is straightforward.

Another good post .

You've summed up the reasons why I am always saying that most surface LRT systems are marketed incorrectly as Rapid Transit to the public.

Some of the reasons why I like the Arbutus LRT as outlined in the city files are the following:

- The space is mostly already there and the construction would have minimal impacts along the Arbutus greenway.

- The Arbutus route that the LRT system would be constructed on couldn't be constructed as a Skytrain line unless it was elevated or tunneled. One of which, NIMBYs will nail themselves to the East Van cross over; and the other option would be too expensive to justify the line. Therefore, IMO, the LRT Arbutus line is a nice Goldilocks technology in this case to address the needs while staying relatively in budget since it wouldn't need a lot of tunneling or elevation.

- This would be a full blown ancillary system that would appropriately complement the rapid transit network that has the potential to expand into destinations like the downtown peninsula.

- The system is not being marketed as a rapid transit system; rather it is using a green technology to address capacity issues. It's not pretending to be anything other than a streetcar.

Would I support the Arbutus streetcar over the Skytrain extensions to UBC and Langely (or even Port Coquitlam) - absolutely never. The Skytrain system extensions, for me, will always take priority over the development of ancillary transit systems. But I cannot deny that the Arbutus greenway LRT would be a great start to an LRT streetcar system in metro Vancouver.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by scryer

Another misconception on the Skytrain to UBC that I feel is perpetuated to the public is that it is an extension fully dedicated to just students. Last time I checked UBC is another large employment sector for people of all trades, and it also has a lot of tourist attractions like the Museum of Anthropology. Although I am not denying that it would mostly be used by students (of which there is a huge student population commuting there), I do strongly believe that the demographic that would use the Arbutus > UBC sections is much more diverse than what mainstream channels are telling us.

Not to mention all of the density that's going to be coming to Jericho, which happens to sit right between Arbutus and UBC. Could we see something like the Senakw development in Kits?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Worth noting that the MST Nations can do whatever they want with Senakw; Jericho is shared with the City... who answer to Point Grey. I'd expect something more like Olympic Village.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Not to mention all of the density that's going to be coming to Jericho, which happens to sit right between Arbutus and UBC. Could we see something like the Senakw development in Kits?

If that were to happen, I would video the stroke that I would have and post it on this thread. Mark. My. Words.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Worth noting that the MST Nations can do whatever they want with Senakw; Jericho is shared with the City... who answer to Point Grey. I'd expect something more like Olympic Village.

Back to reality: I agree with you Migrant. I would also expect something along the scale of OV (which I have to be honest: is a really good Canadian example of a mid-rise community buffer between high densities). If anything I could really see the same thing with Arbutus. After all the Arbutus Centre is a mixed-use project that is already introducing some higher mid rise densities into the area, and it's almost complete.

If anything, Senakw will set a new precedent for constructing buildings with lowered parking requirements and introducing significant heights south of False Creek.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by santak003

I would say that overall, the COV has better planning than my native Toronto, by a long shot. Nothing ever gets built there to what you would consider common sense. At least not from when I left (2005) and came to Vancouver.

Agreed, but I think you're mistaking the City of Vancouver with Metro Vancouver (the regional level of government).
Transit in the region is governed by TransLink which is a governmental body created by the Province of BC
and is essentially an offshoot of Metro Vancouver (former Greater Vancouver Regional District) with a Board comprised of municipal representatives.
https://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/98030_01

The rapid transit lines that are now being built have been on the planning books since the 1996 Livable Region Strategic Plan
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/LRSP.pdf
and now its successor, the Regional Growth Strategy, which is not as prescriptive (wrt the location of rapid transit routes).
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/r...ngPublications/RGSAdoptedbyGVRDBoard.pdf

Each of those guiding documents required unaminous agreement among all Metro Vancouver municipalities
(not just the City of Vancouver).

The main politicization of the process has been the order in which the lines were built and the funding
(as opposed to Toronto where the existence or placement of lines comes and goes with Provinical governments or city councils).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by scryer

...I am always saying that most surface LRT systems are marketed incorrectly as Rapid Transit to the public.

Surface LRT: a bit better than a bus for a bit less cost than rapid transit.

It's a niche that just doesn't make sense to me in a city that's used to Skytrain levels of service.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Right. You need a corridor which is going to need a RapidBus and only a RapidBus for the next 50+ years. Not many of those in Metro Van.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right. You need a corridor which is going to need a RapidBus and only a RapidBus for the next 50+ years. Not many of those in Metro Van.

Broadway has shown that we can scale buses up to the point where grade-separated rapid transit can take over. Surface LRT is superfluous as an intermediate step.

[micmiko]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It seems very unlikely to me that where would be much demand for people traveling from downtown to connect to the Millenium Line eastbound via a streetcar rather than the Canada or Expo lines. Or westbound for that matter...

Agreed. Where's the data that supports an Arbutus-to-Main streetcar will be busier than Arbutus-to-UBC? An Arbutus LRT (from any point of Arbutus, either south along the CP tracks or north along False Creek) should be the lowest priority transit investment, after Broadway Phase 2 (UBC) SkyTrain, Langley SkyTrain extension, Guildford-Newton line, and SFU gondola. Let buses prove that such a route will have that demand. If infinite money allows a toy streetcar along False Creek, though, I think it would be a very nice complement to the available transit choices for Vancouverites.

As an anecdote, when I was in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, I took their toy LRT line along their waterfront. It was really nice and relaxing, but it took a whopping 40+ minutes to get from one end of the line (a subway interchange station) to another subway interchange station, when I could have done that trip by subway in 20 minutes. As a tourist trap, I would probably ride it once and never again. Very few locals used it, especially if the faster, more reliable subway connection is available.

As for why the Canada Line should be a model on how to build (or how not to underbuild) the automated Skytrain system, it is precisely because it's experience that can be drawn locally. There is no need to extrapolate from other cities where LRT has worked 'well' because the way those cities built LRT is fundamentally different. I would say the Fraser Valley is probably the best place for an LRT, followed by Richmond (to Steveston), but I don't think ridership will ever justify an LRT line to the latter.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Depends. Let's say you're going between OV and Main Street - are you really SkyTrain-ing all the way to Granville/VanCityCentre instead of just taking the tram?

Granted, the OV-Arbutus and Waterfront-Main connections are a lot less competitive, but they still serve as a helpful relief valve; anybody with something to do along the way (and there's a lot of that) is going to be using the tram instead of the SkyTrain. That takes pressure off the busiest part of our network.

[micmiko]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Depends. Let's say you're going between OV and Main Street - are you really SkyTrain-ing all the way to Granville/VanCityCentre instead of just taking the tram?

Granted, the OV-Arbutus and Waterfront-Main connections are a lot less competitive, but they still serve as a helpful relief valve; anybody with something to do along the way (and there's a lot of that) is going to be using the tram instead of the SkyTrain. That takes pressure off the busiest part of our network.

I would consider changing at Granville/Van CC if it's raining. If the weather isn't terrible, I'd in all honesty rather just take the 84 and walk.

I don't think Vancouver is at a point where a "relief line" is needed over a line to a large, known employment destination and one of the fastest growing areas in Greater Vancouver (UEL). If the demand is warranted for the False Creek streetcar, then extend the 50 to Main Street Station and see what kind of ridership levels you'll get. Priority-wise, though, it's quite low on the list, given the more pressing need for the other lines throughout Metro Van.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by micmiko

I would consider changing at Granville/Van CC if it's raining. If the weather isn't terrible, I'd in all honesty rather just take the 84 and walk.

I don't think Vancouver is at a point where a "relief line" is needed over a line to a large, known employment destination and one of the fastest growing areas in Greater Vancouver (UEL). If the demand is warranted for the False Creek streetcar, then extend the 50 to Main Street Station and see what kind of ridership levels you'll get. Priority-wise, though, it's quite low on the list, given the more pressing need for the other lines throughout Metro Van.

Soooo you're saying we need a covered walkway to the tram station...

I'd like to point out that Granville/VanCentre and Commercial are starting to overcrowd a little - diverting even 5% of their passengers to another transfer point would go a long way. On one hand, I do understand that we have bigger fish to fry... on the other, it and the SFU Gondola are cheap enough to be "side projects" built in tandem with a UBC, Langley or Newton-Guildford line. IF done right, an 84 (sans the slow crawl down 6th) is exactly what you'd get.