Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction - Page 539

santak003 · #**10761** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 6:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by micmiko

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.

There's got to be both. Learn from everywhere cause you don't know what you don't know. Don't fly to close to that sun icarus.

santak003 · #**10762** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

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.

It depends on the frequency and reliability and the comfort and the view. The 50 diesel bus would not compare. People would take it. I don't think it's apples to apples.

santak003 · #**10763** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 6:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Express691

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

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

It's for wayfinding. Three of them have business/institution constitutions and three are centres. They are destinations (in the future they will be).

Migrant_Coconut · #**10764** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 7:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

I guess that is an important part to iron out. What would be the capture on day one etc... I guess that is what the model is for. I would like them to be more certain of the risk of each approach before mothballing. I've put another post after doing some research and I find their capacity decrease of the LRT doesn't make sense to me and I had a feeling it was wrong.

With an LRT out to UBC...you could extend the system easier. It would have the most cars in the system. Not sure if there are any economies of scale.

Well first off, the 99 runs every two minutes without TSP; it stops at every single red light and doesn't get its own green. I don't know how familiar you are with the route, but as somebody who once used the 99 every day, I don't see a way to implement TSP for it without severely impacting everybody who frequents Broadway and 10th. Ditto light rail.

Second, the developing world's BRTs usually reach five-digit capacities by taking up four lanes (in which artics can leapfrog), and it's usually only because they can't afford a metro. I don't see how either point applies to Vancouver, and I definitely haven't heard of a first world transit line getting the same capacity without a tunnel or viaduct.

Third, a slow tram defeats the entire purpose of upgrading the B-Line - we're not spending billions to get "the same as what we had before but slightly longer."

Fourth, the 2019 study also states that pedestrians will be encouraged to use only certain intersections for the sake of efficient flow; the way Broadway operates and/or is intended to operate, we want pedestrians to use every intersection, and without disruption.

---

Light rail may be easier to build and extend, but a lot harder to upgrade and much more expensive to operate. Ridership estimates aside, the cost per rider is much lower with SkyTrain because you've got a higher-capacity vehicle and no driver salary; I've yet to hear of a tram turning a profit like the Expo or Canada do, so fiscally, that's a loss for TransLink.

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

Skytrain may be required for the density they are expecting...I don't know, but it doesn't seem like it. Skytrain is a future harbinger of density if Vancouver continues to expand as expected. So sometime down the road, you should get a lot of density, but when is the right time to pull the trigger?

That's the million-dollar question. Some say we should bite the bullet and build right after the Arbutus extension when costs are low, others want to wait for some density and ridership numbers. What almost everybody agrees is that with a metro and a quasi-downtown on one end, the province's biggest uni on the other, and multiple present (and future) urban villages in-between, it's a foregone conclusion.

Again, think of Broadway as Bloor. I don't claim to be an expert on Toronto, but I doubt a streetcar through East York to Scarborough would've been a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

How come everyone is worried about the streetcar streetscape? It must be the medium density. So would they rather have massive developments at the underground stations themselves. Those stations must be irresistible targets for density and if it's all underground..more density. You don't get transit without density and you don't get density without transit. Or do they not like a train going down extremely busy broadway? Aren't we supposed to prioritize transit? I mean...do the NIMBY's drive and they don't want to be slowed down..there must be some like that. What are the majority of the voters going to do if they put a streetcar down the tracks...revolt? Is that an issue?

To reiterate for all newcomers, development is created by City Hall's zoning plans, not rapid transit. It's entirely possible for councils and planners to approve townhomes and midrises with SkyTrain, or nodes of highrises with streetcars; the difference is that only the metro can support its own metaphorical weight in passengers.

And it's not just the NIMBYs or the drivers; introducing (or reintroducing) trains to North American streets often ends poorly for anybody using those streets. That's why when Surrey council tried to add a streetcar on King George and 104th - and then on top of that, tried to use that streetcar to start a condo tower rush - they got kicked out of office.

Migrant_Coconut · #**10765** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 7:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nname

Many people refer to "Main Street-Science World" as "Main Street Station" or just "Main"

Haven't heard of anyone uses only the second part.

After all, many people refer to station by their first word only.

I'm pretty sure if it's fine to use "Burquitlam" and "Inlet Centre" as station name, then it will be fine for "Mount Pleasant"

That's fair, but I'd like to point out that some people can't read maps. Probably why it's Oak-VGH instead of Laurel-VGH. ("This isn't the right station, honey, we want to go to Oak, the sign says Laurel!")

officedweller · #**10766** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 8:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's fair, but I'd like to point out that some people can't read maps. Probably why it's Oak-VGH instead of Laurel-VGH. ("This isn't the right station, honey, we want to go to Oak, the sign says Laurel!")

... and to the unfamiliar, the lesser tree streets can be confusing.

aberdeen5698 · #**10767** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 8:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

I've been going on about the Rail Rapid Transit Jan 2019 report and how I don't like how I perceive it as "slamming the tram" by certain suggestions that don't seem right...

You're beating a dead horse that left the stable long ago. The Broadway extension is going to be Skytrain, and that means whenever the UBC extension gets funding it will be Skytrain as well. Save your battles for something that can still be influenced.

santak003 · #**10768** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 11:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

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.

I think it makes sense in the BRT to LRT to RRT steps. Remember that LRT has much more carrying capacity and has semi exclusive ROW. So it is a scale up. RRT is the last scale up. Also from BRT to LRT, there are more door and more card scanners, so the dwell time is significantly decreased and this is what limits headways. Changing the dwell time, significantly increases throughput of the entire syste. The rest of it is operational complexity and reliability, but that can be executed by translink as they are already doing it. They do a good job in that area I find (compared to the rest of Canada).

So more capacity, more doors, more card scanners, less dwell time and more exclusivity and more traffic signal priority (it is unconditional). So it is a step up from BRT. The better you can do BRT, the better you can do LRT (at least the theory on how to scale it up is very similar). Finally you change the ROW, you change the capacity again and that is the final step in the process. It also scales to modal shifts as well. As you introduce more mobility pricing, you are prioritizing transit traffic and you can also strengthen the traffic signal priority to favour the LRT...in the same fashion. So it works as you scale and as your demographics change to more people using transit and prioritizing transit over the car.

It is flawed to think that LRT is not required. Well, that is what I believe. It is a step up, just like skytrain is another step up for the similar reasons of capacity and reliability.

Here we see the number of buses per hour is drastically modified when the dwell time decreases. With moderate service time and dwell time variance and low bus bunching, you can get to 60 buses per hour. So with LRT you can do the same or better and you get more capacity. When swithing to LRT, you generally change to unconditional TSP which allows the tram to get 100% green cycles or better than the 50% that is used to get the 60 buses per hour. Switching to LRT makes it easier to guarantee low service time variance because there are more doors and also there is lower dwell time variance because the train is exclusive ROW and also gets traffic signal priority more...so the throughput is better...or optimum BRT throughput with extra capacity .. and it is normal to scale to block lengths, which is 3 trains west of Macdonald and 2 trains from Stephens to Macdonald, but Stephens doesn't have to be a through street at all...so 3 trains is the ability for it to expand as well.

Table 3‑23 – Approximate Capacity of Single Berth, with Queuing Area
Green/cycle time =0.5
(vehicles per hour)

Service Time (sec.)
Service Time CV*
Headway CV
5% Failure
10% Failure
25% Failure

30
40%
40%
58
64
83

Public Transport Capacity Analysis Procedures for Developing Cities
Jack Reilly and Herbert Levinson
September 2011
http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/.../697190ESW0P1170d0Quality0of0Service.doc

santak003 · #**10769** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 11:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You're beating a dead horse that left the stable long ago. The Broadway extension is going to be Skytrain, and that means whenever the UBC extension gets funding it will be Skytrain as well. Save your battles for something that can still be influenced.

Somehow I think it be skytrain as well. I don't know how things work, but funding seems to be more of an issue now than before. So I don't know where it is on the priority list and it costs a lot. It costs the most out of all ventures. So I still feel like it could slip into something different than full underground.

But I don't really mind it being skytrain. Not sure if it warrants all the density. I just don't see it....the transport cost should match the density.

I could be wrong there.

Don't understand why people don't like the streetcar streetscape and density.

santak003 · #**10770** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 12:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well first off, the 99 runs every two minutes without TSP; it stops at every single red light and doesn't get its own green. I don't know how familiar you are with the route, but as somebody who once used the 99 every day, I don't see a way to implement TSP for it without severely impacting everybody who frequents Broadway and 10th. Ditto light rail.

Right..which is why a 4 minute headway minimum doesn't make sense to say in the Jan 2019 report for rapid transit study because it is an unfair assumption that it is worse than BRT. It can only be better.

TSP has been used is many complicated scenarios and there are dozens of research documents with simulated and real systems and generally 20% reduction in travel time and 1% impact to other traffic with these systems is found. I don't see what is so special about our traffic at all. There are many worse cities than ours. We do have UBC professors/students (judging by the research documents) that are well versed in Traffic Signal Priority systems and for sure we have traffic engineers well versed in it, as they set one up for the 98 bline many years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Third, a slow tram defeats the entire purpose of upgrading the B-Line - we're not spending billions to get "the same as what we had before but slightly longer."

Step 1. Scale your BRT and make sure you use traffic signal priority to reduce operating costs.
Step 2. You can now move the same speed as the BRT and you should be able to make it even faster and you have more capacity because you have better right of way and you spend less time at stops because of all the doors. Because of this, you can scale up the number of trains per hour from the BRT and you have more people per transit unit. So it is not the same and longer. Changing the amount of time at the station and reducing the variability of the stop time and headway deviation (by upgrading to the LRT). you are changing how many buses you can send per hour. That is the problem with the LRT: By making the entire system smoother for the train, you drastically change the throughput, but it is not evident that this is the case and if you don't take the operational step to increase the throughput, you won't get what you want. You can get what you want, but you have to already have applied throughput improvements for the BRT and track them..as if you don't track them you may not be happy with your LRT investment, because they will make your service time (all door boarding and many many doors) better and they will make your headway deviation better when you use the higher priority traffic signal priority, but you have to measure it and make sure it works. It has the potential. The operational team is important for scaling BRT and for scaling LRT. If we do not do that..it is why we are jumping from BRT to skytrain. It is more expensive to jump this way. LRT should be chosen and implemented with lots of operational excellence required first.

By changing the dwell time at the stations, it impacts the system in a large way. The volume capacity of the system changes. That is what you are paying for.

I don't know if you can have a system of moving from BRT to LRT to RRT and save money as you build it out from one to the next to the next. You will certainly learn a lot by attempting to scale BRT and it applies to LRT.
[/QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Fourth, the 2019 study also states that pedestrians will be encouraged to use only certain intersections for the sake of efficient flow; the way Broadway operates and/or is intended to operate, we want pedestrians to use every intersection, and without disruption.

Pedestrians should have priority. So should transit. I agree..we should give priority to pedestrians, but we should also implement traffic signal priority for BRT because buses should have priority over cars. It is feasible to do and has been done in Vancouver already. There would be limited disruption.

New Traffic Signal Priority systems use artificial intelligence and bus load and pedestrian load and can use a network of signals. However, most agencies use a simple, non centralized..and in many cases, unconditional signal priority with First In First Serve. At least that is what research in mid 2000's is suggesting, but things are changing fast in the LRT space.

santak003 · #**10771** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 12:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You're beating a dead horse that left the stable long ago. The Broadway extension is going to be Skytrain, and that means whenever the UBC extension gets funding it will be Skytrain as well. Save your battles for something that can still be influenced.

The problem with the LRT is that it is a scale up from BRT and RRT is a scale up from LRT. How that scale is being achieved is the problem. It is being achieved through operational excellence. Namely headway deviation and service time deviation should be controlled, while proving faster dwell time. These things should be in place for BRT, but LRT allows faster throughput with easier boarding, much more passenger carrying capacity and easier traffic management. It is small changes in these areas that the LRT allows that make the LRT a scale up from the BRT. The problem is that you have to be aware that it is for these reasons and you have to actively improve and measure them as part of the LRT introduction. The BRT is the best way to practice for the BRT.

The problem with the LRT is that it is not obvious how it is able to be in between the BRT and RRT capacity and reliability...and you end up with a BRT system..and more expensive...

Skytrain we know how to make reliable and higher capacity, but the LRT we do not.

LRT will never be an option if we don't know how to scale it.

Skytrain is too expensive for all cases...so I hope we can figure out how to scale BRT. Because it is the same concepts being used for LRT.

scryer · #**10772** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

The LRT vision (as I'm reading in between the lines and as being revisited by yourself and others) is a slow moving, somewhat frequent, not very large tram that connects into downtown and is not rapid transit and I find it interesting you mention it is a green technology to help with capacity issues.

However, what if the arbutus corridor stretch could become slow moving, but still high volume, by just adding cars. It can ... at any moment, become high volume...for free. That is not something you get every day. That seems odd to me and I would be remiss if I didn't point out that I would think that there would be some chance of this becoming more in the future..because it is there.

I'm also assuming that it would be electrified based on the Arbutus studies

.

Speaking on volume, I think that micmiko had a very good idea of extending the 50 to Main Street Science World station in an attempt to gather more transit data on the route similar to the Arbutus streetcar. Speaking of which, I know that I have been derailing this discussion towards the Arbutus Streetcar proposal (in contrast to LRT being chosen to serve UBC) so I just wanted to remind everyone (and myself) that we already have a thread dedicated towards discussing all of the Arbutus Greenway and Future Streetcar Proposal details. I'll see you there

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

It is interesting you mention the NIMBY quadrant. As that is likely the reason why the Arbutus to UBC is seems so politicized to me: there are voters involved.

How come everyone is worried about the streetcar streetscape? It must be the medium density.

The NIMBY mentality perplexes me a bit when it comes to the Arbutus > UBC Skytrain solution. Basically they hate the Skytrain being elevated (or even at-grade) because it produces noise, it blocks their views, they feel that it brings in the riff-raff (which it doesn't), and the station infrastructure is bulky; which most are legitimate points to have. Because of the NIMBY's in this particular neighbourhood (along with the Broadway subway needing to be underground in the first place), it is mostly likely that a significant portion Arbutus > UBC stretch of Skytrain will be underground.

The NIMBYs always want to "compromise" with a street-integrated LRT system because of all of the superficial reasons that comes with street-integrated LRT including it giving the neighbourhood more of a town-feel

. Whereas the city will probably compromise by making most of the Arbutus > UBC stretch underground. My opinion is that half, if not most, will need to be underground anyways; and that it could potentially surface and elevate past Blanca street (however the alignment is finalized). But I digress... basically the NIMBYs would rather live in the Town of Vancouver than the City of Vancouver but the reality is that the region has 2.5 million people in a restricted urban geography

.

Essentially you have this one neighbourhood holding the metro region hostage by stubbornly insisting that it's ALL underground or that it should be a streetcar just to benefit the current owners whereas the Metro region needs this extension as Skytrain technology to meet environmental, housing, and employment needs. And then they use those reasons to oppose taller, denser developments which is a whole extra spin to this dance.

Now compound those feelings with the fact that Kitsilano has A LOT of these NIMBYs minus the Jericho Lands and UBC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Light rail may be easier to build and extend, but a lot harder to upgrade and much more expensive to operate. Ridership estimates aside, the cost per rider is much lower with SkyTrain because you've got a higher-capacity vehicle and no driver salary; I've yet to hear of a tram turning a profit like the Expo or Canada do, so fiscally, that's a loss for TransLink.

I agree. I would be curious to know if any of Toronto's streetcar routes turn any profits for them? But then again Toronto's streetcar system is older than the automobile itself iirc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's the million-dollar question. Some say we should bite the bullet and build right after the Arbutus extension when costs are low, others want to wait for some density and ridership numbers. What almost everybody agrees is that with a metro and a quasi-downtown on one end, the province's biggest uni on the other, and multiple present (and future) urban villages in-between, it's a foregone conclusion.

I am definitely of the mind that we should absolutely build this thing to UBC ASAP while it is still "cheap".

We did the same thing with the original Millennium line - a lot of people criticized it for being a Skytrain to nowhere. But look at how far it has come since its original inception in terms of the TOD. The Brentwood, Lougheed, and Gilmore developments wouldn't have come to fruition if the Millennium line wasn't there in the first place and there are many more TOD examples with the Evergreen extension into Coquitlam. To me, the Skytrain creates and amplifies neighbourhoods even if it doesn't do it right from the first day; and it is cheap enough to operate to eventually capture the ridership.

Bringing my point to the Arbutus > UBC extension: by the time the VCC>Arbutus is in operation, it will be a heavily used line as Broadway is the province's second largest employment hub. A significant part of the ridership that is using the Broadway subway is already going to UBC. And UBC is already developing themselves very densely; and the Jericho Lands are also looking to develop densely as well meaning that the denser neighbourhoods are already a step ahead from the Burnaby TOD's when they were looking at developing around their respective Skytrain stations. There's already a high amount of interest to develop dense neighbourhoods along Arbutus > UBC; now compound that with an already high student ridership.

Heck, we are even seeing premature development interest in Surrey's Fleetwood area for when they extend the Expo line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, think of Broadway as Bloor. I don't claim to be an expert on Toronto, but I doubt a streetcar through East York to Scarborough would've been a good idea.

This is exactly how I feel about Broadway. I'm hoping that Broadway is going to give the COV a much-needed resurgence and second opportunity for denser urban developments like Bloor street in Toronto. Even the Broadway subway to Arbutus is going to do this if the COV can get its head out of its 🞵🞵🞵 when it comes to taller and denser developments outside of the core, like the Senakw project.

Migrant_Coconut · #**10773** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

Right..which is why a 4 minute headway minimum doesn't make sense to say in the Jan 2019 report for rapid transit study because it is an unfair assumption that it is worse than BRT. It can only be better.

TSP has been used is many complicated scenarios and there are dozens of research documents with simulated and real systems and generally 20% reduction in travel time and 1% impact to other traffic with these systems is found. I don't see what is so special about our traffic at all. There are many worse cities than ours. We do have UBC professors/students (judging by the research documents) that are well versed in Traffic Signal Priority systems and for sure we have traffic engineers well versed in it, as they set one up for the 98 bline many years ago.

The opposite, actually - with TSP we'd have to push back the 99 to every four minutes, or the streets become a conveyor belt of buses.
If you're thinking of the King streetcar, you'll note that the new traffic rules that enable two-minute frequency also make it effectively impossible to drive on King for more than a couple blocks; neither Broadway nor 10th have that luxury.

Your research appears to be incomplete: the 98 ran every five to seven minutes, which furthers McElhanney's point much more than yours. I'd be very interested in learning of a transit line that does two-minute frequencies with no road closures, only two lanes, and no grade-separation - just TSP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

Step 1. Scale your BRT and make sure you use traffic signal priority to reduce operating costs.
Step 2. You can now move the same speed as the BRT and you should be able to make it even faster and you have more capacity because you have better right of way and you spend less time at stops because of all the doors. Because of this, you can scale up the number of trains per hour from the BRT and you have more people per transit unit. So it is not the same and longer. Changing the amount of time at the station and reducing the variability of the stop time and headway deviation (by upgrading to the LRT). you are changing how many buses you can send per hour. That is the problem with the LRT: By making the entire system smoother for the train, you drastically change the throughput, but it is not evident that this is the case and if you don't take the operational step to increase the throughput, you won't get what you want. You can get what you want, but you have to already have applied throughput improvements for the BRT and track them..as if you don't track them you may not be happy with your LRT investment, because they will make your service time (all door boarding and many many doors) better and they will make your headway deviation better when you use the higher priority traffic signal priority, but you have to measure it and make sure it works. It has the potential. The operational team is important for scaling BRT and for scaling LRT. If we do not do that..it is why we are jumping from BRT to skytrain. It is more expensive to jump this way. LRT should be chosen and implemented with lots of operational excellence required first.

By changing the dwell time at the stations, it impacts the system in a large way. The volume capacity of the system changes. That is what you are paying for.

I don't know if you can have a system of moving from BRT to LRT to RRT and save money as you build it out from one to the next to the next. You will certainly learn a lot by attempting to scale BRT and it applies to LRT.

The cost difference between BRT/LRT/RRT may be linear, but the capacity difference is exponential, as is demand.

TSP can't be used for 99 frequencies (as above) and only saves you a few minutes' travel time, we can't expand the trams past three-car layouts, and reliability isn't any better than the 99; being generous, we'd get at most ten, twenty years out of the tram before we had to take it down. And there's a good chance that both construction costs and demolition costs could've paid for the SkyTrain that we'd have to build anyway. Unlike buses, trams are meant to be permanent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by santak003

Pedestrians should have priority. So should transit. I agree..we should give priority to pedestrians, but we should also implement traffic signal priority for BRT because buses should have priority over cars. It is feasible to do and has been done in Vancouver already. There would be limited disruption.

New Traffic Signal Priority systems use artificial intelligence and bus load and pedestrian load and can use a network of signals. However, most agencies use a simple, non centralized..and in many cases, unconditional signal priority with First In First Serve. At least that is what research in mid 2000's is suggesting, but things are changing fast in the LRT space.

A reminder that most of downtown Granville has been car-free for decades, and that most of suburban Granville is practically a freeway. Disruption was minimal.
Broadway has too many villages and too many busy pedestrian crossings (many of them push-activated) for that to work. What happens when a light is about to turn white at the same time a tram is approaching the intersection? Do we prioritize the trams or the pedestrians? The nice thing about grade separation is that we don't have to choose.

I'd be very wary of over-relying on technology to compensate for a flawed design. Ask Boeing how that turned out.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**10774** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 11:24 PM**

does anyone want to provide a quick summary of what all these post are about? for those of us who don't feel like reading a 500 page novel...

Migrant_Coconut · #**10775** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 11:36 PM**

tl;dr:

"Studies lying. Streetcar works."

"No, not the case at all."

Rico · #**10776** Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 12:06 AM**

Just to stir the traffic priority stuff. The original Broadway study reviewed signal priority and found for Broadway signal priority would be effective until about 7,000 pphpd after which it would break down (too many conflicts). The important thing to remember is Broadway actually effectively goes ACROSS the major traffic flows. This means signal priority for transit on Broadway negatively affects transit on Main, Cambie, Oak, Granville, Burrard ect. Too much negative impact on the North South transit routes is undesirable. So....signal priority would be awesome now....but room to grow is limited and the future without effective signal priority is already visible, do we really want to go there?