Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[Mac Write]

Where will the OMC be? Will they use OMC 3/4 (depending on if you could Canada Line as OMC 3), or build OMC5 in Surrey?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by micmiko

Where's the data that supports an Arbutus-to-Main streetcar will be busier than Arbutus-to-UBC?

I just wanted to echo that I completely agree that we are missing the commuter data to support a decision to build the Arbutus LRT route.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

Originally Posted by micmiko

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.

I agree with both of you on different points.

I agree with Migrant in regards to commuter patterns from Main Street > OV; there is quite a lot of restaurants, shopping, light industrial, breweries and housing that makes this specific area function dynamically. I can't seem to find the study (and I am not even sure if it was a Canadian study) but I am pretty sure that there was a study that looked at data on commuter 'transfer' behaviour and found that most people would prefer not to transfer or only to transfer once? If this ends up being easy to find, I'm gonna kick myself lol.

micmoko - I totally agree with you on extending the 50 to Main Street Science World station to gather more data ridership numbers and demand. I will say, though, that when the Millennium line extends to Arbutus street that it will change commuter patterns in the region maybe even warranting a relief line of some sort.

Unfortunately I can see the Arbutus greenway line being built only as a sudden knee-jerk reaction to high Canada line ridership numbers. And I think that it is possible because the Canada line carries less PPHPD than the Millennium line. But I don't see that happening until after the Millennium line to UBC is built. Even if Metro Vancouver built the Arbutus greenway LRT line, it truly would be one of the best surface-level LRT systems built in the country IMO .

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Where will the OMC be? Will they use OMC 3/4 (depending on if you could Canada Line as OMC 3), or build OMC5 in Surrey?

I believe that there is an OMC that would be constructed near Langley (which is one of Langley's main offers in getting the Skytrain to their city)? But I am happy to be corrected .

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by scryer

I believe that there is an OMC that would be constructed near Langley (which is one of Langley's main offers in getting the Skytrain to their city)? But I am happy to be corrected .

They had an RFP but the list of sites didn't include Langley I believe.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They had an RFP but the list of sites didn't include Langley I believe.

I seem to remember that an OMC is to be built as part of Phase 1 of the Expo Line extension - which would put it in Surrey.

[Mac Write]

If there is no OMC open for the 2024 new rolling stock for the broadway extension, were would the trains go? is there enough space on the system?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I seem to remember that an OMC is to be built as part of Phase 1 of the Expo Line extension - which would put it in Surrey.

Actually there was talk of a Langley OMC as part of that extension but there was another RFP for that other new OMC expansion.

They just had another RFP closing in June for OMC 4 consulting services:

https://service.ariba.com/Discovery.aw/ad/viewRFX?id=8173462

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

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.

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.

What about a layered system? Imagine a corridor that has the need for Skytrain, so they build that. But, now lets picture the area between the stations are busy enough to keep a B Line route in place. Then, you could have both. Maybe it would be better to put B Line routes in, then upgrade to surface LRT, then add a Skytrain. Now you have great transit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by scryer

I can't seem to find the study (and I am not even sure if it was a Canadian study) but I am pretty sure that there was a study that looked at data on commuter 'transfer' behaviour and found that most people would prefer not to transfer or only to transfer once?

It shouldn't take an expensive study to understand that commuters hate transfers. But transfers to or between automated rapid transit lines are less egregious because their high frequency means you don't have to wait too long. This is one of the Achilles Heels of surface LRT - because it can't be automated it means you end up with lower frequencies in order to keep operating costs low. That, along with longer transit times, makes the whole system less desirable, reduces ridership, and makes it a lot harder to recoup the cost of running it.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe it would be better to put B Line routes in, then upgrade to surface LRT, then add a Skytrain. Now you have great transit.

There's no reason to build an LRT system just because it's a fad, or even because you happen to have the land available (hello, Arbutus corridor). Broadway shows that buses have the capacity to move a lot of people, by the time you exceed their capacity you're ready for Skytrain.

If you need to move so many people that buses can't do it then you're going to need grade separation to provide a system that attracts more ridership and can accommodate expansion into the future. It's myopically short-sighted to throw money away on a stopgap surface-based system.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's no reason to build an LRT system just because it's a fad, or even because you happen to have the land available (hello, Arbutus corridor). Broadway shows that buses have the capacity to move a lot of people, by the time you exceed their capacity you're ready for Skytrain.

If you need to move so many people that buses can't do it then you're going to need grade separation to provide a system that attracts more ridership and can accommodate expansion into the future. It's myopically short-sighted to throw money away on a stopgap surface-based system.

504 King streetcar carries about 84,000 a year.
99 B Line carries about 55,000
Yup, that line that is about 100 years old is just a fad.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It shouldn't take an expensive study to understand that commuters hate transfers. But transfers to or between automated rapid transit lines are less egregious because their high frequency means you don't have to wait too long. This is one of the Achilles Heels of surface LRT - because it can't be automated it means you end up with lower frequencies in order to keep operating costs low. That, along with longer transit times, makes the whole system less desirable, reduces ridership, and makes it a lot harder to recoup the cost of running it.

When I was in Seoul, taking 3 different trains wasn't really a big deal, maybe the trip ends up being half an hour total.

Living in North Vancouver, just to catch one bus directly downtown might be a wait of half an hour, and that's not even the trip or any transfers at all.

I don't think transfers are really that big of a deal if they're relatively seamless. Bus loops can be a pain in the 🞵🞵🞵, but do people really mind getting off the Millenium Line at Commercial and getting on the Expo Line? (When it's not Mad Max commuter hours)

[s211]

Did I just stumble on the transit fantasy thread AGAIN?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by s211

Did I just stumble on the transit fantasy thread AGAIN?

Yup....

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

If there is no OMC open for the 2024 new rolling stock for the broadway extension, were would the trains go? is there enough space on the system?

They can store trains on the elevated portions of the mainline if necessary
(it's not as if they need easy access for drivers in the morning).

[Mac Write]

I know about storing on elevated sections. During revenue service were would they store all the unused trains when the barest of service, do we today have the capacity to support M-line to Arbutus with all the new trains?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I know about storing on elevated sections. During revenue service were would they store all the unused trains when the barest of service, do we today have the capacity to support M-line to Arbutus with all the new trains?

One of the big advantages of an automated system is that since you don't have to pay operators you can maintain pretty high frequencies even during off-peak hours. That means more trains in service and less need for storage capacity during operating hours than you would for a conventional system.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I know about storing on elevated sections. During revenue service were would they store all the unused trains when the barest of service, do we today have the capacity to support M-line to Arbutus with all the new trains?

If there's no place to store then during service hours, keep them in service for an incremental cost until a storage facility is built (ie Langley Extension Phase 2?). It would be a trade-off between the incremental cost of extra cars in service versus the cost of accelerating the construction of a storage yard (whether in a more expensive location or also accelerating associated trackage).

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If there's no place to store then during service hours, keep them in service for an incremental cost until a storage facility is built (ie Langley Extension Phase 2?). It would be a trade-off between the incremental cost of extra cars in service versus the cost of accelerating the construction of a storage yard (whether in a more expensive location or also accelerating associated trackage).

I think the maintenance bays associated with a new OCM would also be a factor. They threw out $270 million for OCM4 and $100 million set aside for land acquisition.

[Express691]

https://buzzer.translink.ca/2020/09/broa...bMmN76p80w1oqESEtPIqbx0Q8rLhhvhYB-Txo6So

The final names of the Broadway Subway Project stations are:

Great Northern Way – Emily Carr
Mount Pleasant
Broadway – City Hall
Oak – VGH
South Granville
Arbutus

These are fine except the first station. There is a balance between placemaking and practicality, and this will be annoying to type out during delays, making signage for construction, and what else...

Also, another bout of inconsistency: There is a theme of stations have hyphenations that involve major universities. VCC-Clark. Production Way-University. Lafarge Lake-Douglas. Why wasn't SFU added to Surrey Central? Douglas at New West Station? KPU near Lansdowne? 

Hyphenation in general is good when the names are short. Even buses now just sign "Brighouse station" because the name is too long

[WarrenC12]

The first station should just be Emily Carr. Otherwise they are fine I guess.

Oak-VGH changed from Fairview-VGH for easier tourist wayfinding?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The first station should just be Emily Carr. Otherwise they are fine I guess.

Oak-VGH changed from Fairview-VGH for easier tourist wayfinding?

This one confuses me since it isn't even Oak, but Laurel.
I think just VGH would have made the most sense.