HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


View Poll Results: Based on options for Broadway Corridor Study, what is your preferred choice?
BRT: Commercial to UBC 25 6.16%
LRT A: Commercial to UBC OR Commercial via VCC to UBC 31 7.64%
LRT B: Main St. to UBC AND Commercial to UBC 18 4.43%
RRT: Commercial to UBC OR VCC to UBC 283 69.70%
COMBO: RRT to Arbutus/LRT to Main St via Arbutus 39 9.61%
BUS: Enhanced Bus Service for all buses to UBC 10 2.46%
Voters: 406. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3301  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 10:53 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
The U-Pass program isn't only to get students to/from school using transit, but to make it part of their lifestyle for most of their traveling needs, so after 2, 3 or 4 years of use they won't think of it as a hardship or an inconvenience when they have to pay the full-cost of their monthly fare cards as part of the commute to their new jobs. If they are lucky, their new employer will be part of the employee bus pass program that makes their monthly pass cheaper - just not as cheap as the U-Pass.

Some of these new grads will be using transit for a few years after graduating, some for a decade or more, so for each of them using transit after graduating, that is one car NOT on the road. And thats a good thing.
I don't see the UPass as being a form of indoctrination. I know studies have shown that more students after graduation keep taking transit now than before, but that can also be because transit is 10 times better in the region than it was before the Canada Line and Millennium line.

4 years of using a Upass isn't going to keep people riding transit if after graduating Transit doesn't serve them. Living in a low rent apartment in Marpole or Metrotown and taking transit to UBC is one thing, getting a job someplace like the East side of North Vancouver or South Burnaby in Fraserview and only being able to afford to buy a townhouse in Cloverdale is another. No amount of upass Brainwashing is going to convince people to keep taking transit in those kind of situations if they can afford to avoid it.

I'm not arguing against the Upass, I think the Upass is great. I wish I had a Upass when I went to BCIT. But it's priced at it's current level so that Translink loses only around $1 million dollars on it. I think that's a fair trade to help out students who need it. But UBC is currently at 30% mode share on Transit and the system basically breaks even.

If Skytrain were to increase that to a downtown like 50%, the cost of the UPass would have to go up to cover the new expenses. Now if you were to only price the cost of the Upass against operating expenses (and not capital expenditures) then any form of LRT or Skytrain would probably be a money saver over the Bline. How much for each one is to be determined and could be the deciding factor in the grand scheme of things. If it actually costs less per student to get them to UBC from Arbutus on Skytrain, then Skytrain is the most logical choice. If LRT for that distance has a better return on price/trip, the LRT might be the way to go.

But if the cost of the UPass were to increase it might become more of a burden to some students. Still cheaper than a monthly pass, but more expensive than it was before. Some students will brush it off and be glad for the time savings, but then again some students drive BMW's while others go into so much debt they can't pay it off for 20 years.

So that's what I was getting at. I think most of us can agree that extending Skytrain from VCC to at least Arbutus is not only logical but necessary to improve transit and growth in the Key central Broadway area.

However, from Arbutus to UBC is slightly more than half the distance of the entire line. Is it worth it to spend roughly half the $2.8 billion estimated cost, or about $1.4billion on the Skytrain from Arbutus to UBC? Would it affect ridership on that portion that much to justify an extra billion over what Streetcar or LRT would cost? Can that section see growth on the same scale as VCC-Arbutus?

IF LRT from Arbutus to UBC can attract almost as many riders as Skytrain on that leg, what's the point of spending the extra B note to get the same results?

(DISCLAIMER: I'm just playing devils advocate here, these are real, valid counter points to Skytrain all the way to UBC. I'm trying to present some better arguments than the conspiracy/lobby/nazi arguments from some (cough) that people are going to have to deal with)
     
     
  #3302  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 10:54 PM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
I was looking back on these threads, and another idea jumped out at me.

Use UBC SkyTrain tunnel for the direct access by Millennium line, and move the B-Line buses to 41st Ave:



Red is UBC Millennium extension
Green is the 41st Ave B-Line.

41st would keep its regular trolley route, but the B-Line would be a limited-stop route from UBC, with stops at Arbutus (especially when they get the Arbutus Corridor train), Granville (?), Oak (C-Line), Langara, Joyce Station (SkyTrain), BCIT, Brentwood (SkyTrain).

If this new 41st Ave B-Line is popular and gets over capacity then it could be replaced with a tram / streetcar / LRT. This could take advantage of the fact that Translink still has their Oakridge Transit Centre on 41st between Oak and Cambie which could be rebuilt as a new streetcar OMC. Perhaps like they did in New York, the OMC can be built several stories below ground, and have housing / offices / mall / public facilities at street level and above ground - 'hiding' the OMC from the rest of the neighborhood. Just like Oakridge Mall has done for cars, ramps in the middle of 41st Ave could be used to connect the underground streetcar OMC with 41st Ave when streetcars are going in and out of service.
Doesn't 41st already have a B-line, or atleast express bus service?

As for burying OMCs under development, why couldn't they do that with Skytrains current OMC?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
     
     
  #3303  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 11:10 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Limited Stop Bus that only runs during rush hours.

As for burying, they can, but it's $$$$$$$ at the end of the day.
     
     
  #3304  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 11:18 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
I was looking back on these threads, and another idea jumped out at me.

Use UBC SkyTrain tunnel for the direct access by Millennium line, and move the B-Line buses to 41st Ave:



Red is UBC Millennium extension
Green is the 41st Ave B-Line.

41st would keep its regular trolley route, but the B-Line would be a limited-stop route from UBC, with stops at Arbutus (especially when they get the Arbutus Corridor train), Granville (?), Oak (C-Line), Langara, Joyce Station (SkyTrain), BCIT, Brentwood (SkyTrain).

If this new 41st Ave B-Line is popular and gets over capacity then it could be replaced with a tram / streetcar / LRT. This could take advantage of the fact that Translink still has their Oakridge Transit Centre on 41st between Oak and Cambie which could be rebuilt as a new streetcar OMC. Perhaps like they did in New York, the OMC can be built several stories below ground, and have housing / offices / mall / public facilities at street level and above ground - 'hiding' the OMC from the rest of the neighborhood. Just like Oakridge Mall has done for cars, ramps in the middle of 41st Ave could be used to connect the underground streetcar OMC with 41st Ave when streetcars are going in and out of service.
My thought is what if the Combo option is picked, and the savings of building LRT from Arbutus to UBC is put into turning that route into LRT as well. The combo option could conceivably save around a billion dollars (depending on how it's built), and that could go a long way to not only getting a cross town line built, but also build the Arbutus line and downtown Streetcar.

However, building Skytrain all the way to UBC and doing streetcar later is probably a better investment of the same amount of money. But it would be interesting to figure out what kind of ridership numbers an extensive Streetcar network could generate for Vancouver, especially if it fed into Skytrain lines and high volume areas.
     
     
  #3305  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 11:35 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
Doesn't 41st already have a B-line, or atleast express bus service?

As for burying OMCs under development, why couldn't they do that with Skytrains current OMC?
There's no reason why they couldn't.

I suspect back in the mid 80s when SkyTrain was being built, the Edmonds OMC was 'in the sticks' where nobody wanted to live, but they knew the Edmonds Station would become necessary as the area developed.

When the Oakridge Trolley centre opened in the 40s I suspect it too was 'in the sticks', and the area has built up around it since then. Wasn't Oakridge Mall a 'suburban outdoor mall' like Park Royal when they opened in the 50s?

Now that the areas around these transit sites are built up, I would bet that the Oakridge land is substantially more valuable than Edmonds, so redeveloping it for housing / offices / public uses would generate a higher return.

Perhaps leases & rents on a rebuilt Oakridge site could cover the annual operating budget of a 41st Ave train?

I've heard that in NYC, the West Side rail yards at 34th St and Hudson river (west of Penn Station) have been there for over a hundred years. Now the City is negotiating an agreement with a developer to hide the railyards under a $billion$dollar$ platform, and then the developer can build dozens of office / condo / apartment towers and parks over the railyards, paying the city an annual lease for 99 years. The other side of the deal is that city has to spend a $billion$dollar$ extending one of the subway lines west from Times Square to 10th Ave, and then south to 23rd St (with a station at this new West Side railyards development) .

Not many people know that Park Ave and all the fancy buildings along it's route are actually built on top of the Grand Central Terminal rail yards that reach from 42nd St (the Grand Central Terminal building) up to 57th St, and then the commuter rail tunnels that run up to around 96th St, then elevated tracks to the Bronx.



The lesson here is that as long as it's buried, and out of sight, and forgotten, the Chi Chi Riche can live with it.

Last edited by jsbertram; Apr 28, 2010 at 12:22 AM.
     
     
  #3306  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2010, 11:52 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Didn't I see one of the options was to build SkyTrain tunnel to Arbutus and then run the B-Line from Arbutus to UBC?

This could be done as a stop-gap if the full bore UBC SkyTrain funding is short, or until a decision on the Arbutus Corridor streetcar is made and it's running.

At that point the next decision would be
a) continue the SkyTrain tunnel to UBC in the Broadway Corridor, or
b) branch off the Arbutus Corridor streetcar to UBC using Broadway, or 41st, or 16th, or King Edward.
     
     
  #3307  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 6:55 AM
huenthar huenthar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
However, from Arbutus to UBC is slightly more than half the distance of the entire line. Is it worth it to spend roughly half the $2.8 billion estimated cost, or about $1.4billion on the Skytrain from Arbutus to UBC? Would it affect ridership on that portion that much to justify an extra billion over what Streetcar or LRT would cost? Can that section see growth on the same scale as VCC-Arbutus?

IF LRT from Arbutus to UBC can attract almost as many riders as Skytrain on that leg, what's the point of spending the extra B note to get the same results?

(DISCLAIMER: I'm just playing devils advocate here, these are real, valid counter points to Skytrain all the way to UBC. I'm trying to present some better arguments than the conspiracy/lobby/nazi arguments from some (cough) that people are going to have to deal with)
My answer to that argument is, "think long term". Investment in a SkyTrain extension will be sufficient for a minimum 50 years, and the major expense - the tunnel - is relatively maintenance-free and will provide sufficient capacity for a hundred years or more, perhaps indefinitely, depending how the city changes in the future. It is likely, however, given the regional significance of UBC as a destination and the (increasing) residential density along the line, that a surface line will reach capacity within 50 years and need to be replaced by a tunnel anyways; and even if not, the day will still come when the operating cost savings alone will more than pay the difference in initial investment, and in the 50-year-meanwhile the transit is faster, more reliable and likely to better attract ridership patterns in the long term. In short, it might be reasonably spun that a surface line past Arbutus looks better on the balance sheet in the short-term - but in the long term, fully tunneling the corridor is the best option and the earlier it is done, the more profitable an investment it becomes.


re. 41st B-line: I thought TransLink was planning on doing a study for a B-line here, tentatively the #91, but that it's been shelved along with the #95 Hastings B-line until they have the funds for it...

Last edited by huenthar; Apr 28, 2010 at 7:13 AM.
     
     
  #3308  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 7:41 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Unfortunately the funding and timing is set by politicians who are more concerned about "will approving this project get me re-elected?", instead of being about "We'll be thanked by our children and grandchildren for having the foresight to pursue this difficult project"
     
     
  #3309  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 7:43 AM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
The combo option could conceivably save around a billion dollars (depending on how it's built).
Far less than that..

If you assume the SkyTrain to Arbutus cost half of the 2.8 billions, that is, 1.4 billions. To save a billion, the LRT have to cost less than 400 millions.

Lets assume the system is built with maximum peak capacity of 8000pphpd, travel time of 41min (same as the LRT from Commercial to UBC), 7 min layover (similar to the time used by Calgary C-Train), and 16% spare ratio (same as C-Train).

To carry 8000pphpd, you need around 50 cars per hour assuming each car carries 162 (from CT website). That means the system will need 80 active cars during peak, or 95 cars in the total fleet. From the recent order for Calgary and Edmonton's LRVs, each car cost around 4 millions. So that means only the trains would cost 380 millions.

I wonder what kind of system we can build for just 20 millions.... or about 1.4 millions per km... I think even the trolley wire cost more than that...

And before anyone says 8000pphpd is too much for UBC, the maximum total trip per hour coming into UBC during AM peak is just short of 6500, with 73.8% of them using the Broadway-4th-16th corridor. So it is only less than 68% increase in capacity unless the LRT is not replacing any bus routes...

Last edited by nname; Apr 28, 2010 at 7:55 AM. Reason: meant to say "cars", not "trains"
     
     
  #3310  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 7:44 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
In terms of "long term," I don't think there is a debate between SkyTrain and LRT for the Broadway corridor. I think this argument is valid for the Central Broadway District to have RRT, but I don't think it is completely applicable to UBC, and here's why.

Approximately half of all commuters going to the Central Broadway District are coming from outside of the City of Vancouver. The level of congestion today between Main and Arbutus varies a lot in the day, and can be quite horrific. And since there are many missing connections in our SkyTrain system, it is absolutely critical that we build out our Millennium Line to Arbutus in order to connect the busiest nodes of Central Broadway together: South Granville, Oak/Laurel/VGH, and Cambie Village/City Hall.

I question the need to have SkyTrain past Arbutus. Most passengers transferring going past Arbutus anyways, are passengers bound for UBC. Like Central Broadway, passengers to UBC are coming from all over the region as well. Unlike Central Broadway, there is flexibility in different modes and routes to UBC. As ridership increases on the LRT portion, it would probably be worth looking into expanding the capacity for that portion via longer trains and more frequencies, but also explore expanding Vancouver's LRT network to offset passengers using the Broadway LRT, such as developing LRT to downtown from UBC and developing LRT on 41st Avenue to better connect passengers arriving from the South, which really make up many passengers who come into UBC. This way, you are really expanding the rapid transit system to many more people. At the same time, you are still offering a one-transfer ride from passengers coming from the south. I guess you can still say there can be LRT on 41st Avenue if a SkyTrain is built, but I'm sure that the chances of that are much lower.

At the end of the day though, it really comes down to cost. Based on my calculations, you really only save ~$400 million with the combo alternative relative to the RRT option. Like I said before, there are a lot of other factors that need to have answers to. However, if there are significant savings and that capacity issues are addressed, I can see the combo alternative work well. It really all depends on Phase 2 of the actual Broadway Corridor Study.
     
     
  #3311  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 5:21 PM
CLC CLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
Vancouver Courier: TransLink presents options for Broadway transit route

Quote:
Jeff Busby, who manages TransLink's rapid transit studies, said 60 participants attended the first workshop held at UBC last week and the general sense was that the options presented were the right place to start.

...

"[The rapid transit technologies] need to be fast and frequent and reliable, those are the three criteria," Busby said. "As fast as the B-Line, as frequent as the B-Line and more reliable than the B-Line. "
Full article:
http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=d6d797c8-af62-4b5c-9ce0-2995f52d2a7d
     
     
  #3312  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 5:33 PM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
In terms of "long term," I don't think there is a debate between SkyTrain and LRT for the Broadway corridor. I think this argument is valid for the Central Broadway District to have RRT, but I don't think it is completely applicable to UBC, and here's why.

Approximately half of all commuters going to the Central Broadway District are coming from outside of the City of Vancouver. The level of congestion today between Main and Arbutus varies a lot in the day, and can be quite horrific. And since there are many missing connections in our SkyTrain system, it is absolutely critical that we build out our Millennium Line to Arbutus in order to connect the busiest nodes of Central Broadway together: South Granville, Oak/Laurel/VGH, and Cambie Village/City Hall.

I question the need to have SkyTrain past Arbutus. Most passengers transferring going past Arbutus anyways, are passengers bound for UBC. Like Central Broadway, passengers to UBC are coming from all over the region as well. Unlike Central Broadway, there is flexibility in different modes and routes to UBC. As ridership increases on the LRT portion, it would probably be worth looking into expanding the capacity for that portion via longer trains and more frequencies, but also explore expanding Vancouver's LRT network to offset passengers using the Broadway LRT, such as developing LRT to downtown from UBC and developing LRT on 41st Avenue to better connect passengers arriving from the South, which really make up many passengers who come into UBC. This way, you are really expanding the rapid transit system to many more people. At the same time, you are still offering a one-transfer ride from passengers coming from the south. I guess you can still say there can be LRT on 41st Avenue if a SkyTrain is built, but I'm sure that the chances of that are much lower.

At the end of the day though, it really comes down to cost. Based on my calculations, you really only save ~$400 million with the combo alternative relative to the RRT option. Like I said before, there are a lot of other factors that need to have answers to. However, if there are significant savings and that capacity issues are addressed, I can see the combo alternative work well. It really all depends on Phase 2 of the actual Broadway Corridor Study.
Deasine, I agree with you on almost all points, except one. What you are talking about is Vancouver as it exists TODAY. In 25 years, densities may change, and one thing is certain; UBC will have more housing a greater resident population, and more facilities. There may therefore come a time when we need to convert to Skytrain. The costs of doing that would be extremely high as well. Thinking long-range, despite the cost, and the validity of your points, I think it's better to go Skytrain all the way, if we can finance it.
     
     
  #3313  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 6:01 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by trofirhen View Post
Deasine, I agree with you on almost all points, except one. What you are talking about is Vancouver as it exists TODAY. In 25 years, densities may change, and one thing is certain; UBC will have more housing a greater resident population, and more facilities. There may therefore come a time when we need to convert to Skytrain. The costs of doing that would be extremely high as well. Thinking long-range, despite the cost, and the validity of your points, I think it's better to go Skytrain all the way, if we can finance it.
I took into account with all the long term plans for UBC and for Metro Vancouver. While there will probably be more developments that will come with any rapid transit, most of the increases in density will occur East of Arbutus, on lands that haven't been developed with apartments already. It's going to take a long time before we see any increases in density in West Point Grey; I would be surprised if we do.

UBC is also to add a lot more market housing within University Square and Wesbrook Village, the number of passengers traveling to/from UBC is only going to increase, and UBC will still be attracting commuters from all over the region. And because of this, I question why there is a need to funnel everyone on Broadway and why shouldn't we explore expanding rapid transit access to better serve other areas and distribute the passenger base coming into the University.

Again, it all comes down to the cost at the end of the day. I'm personally torn between the Combo Alternative and the RRT Option and I fully understand most of the pros and cons associated with both. But I also think many of us are getting ahead of ourselves, immediately ruling out all the options. I think it's better we save our conclusions when this study actually releases its information in the second phase. At this point of time, TransLink is only throwing ideas on the table and looking for feedback on how to continue its study, not on which construction method they are committing themselves with.

And like I said, if the combo alternative only produces a minor savings, and I hope my initial estimates are way off, then I think we should just RRT it all the way. But if there are significant savings, it should be looked at in further detail.
     
     
  #3314  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 7:36 PM
ozonemania ozonemania is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 678
I just wanted to put in an emphatic comment that it should be RRT to UBC all the way. Not enough of this being said lately.

I can appreciate all the comments and arguements for a combination RRT/LRT option, lots of great thought has gone into these ideas. But they seem like more academic exercises now.

I'm guessing all arguments for RRT all the way have been made, and now we're exploring the other options. Am I right or is this combo option really that appealing?

It's common sense that RRT goes all the way to UBC. The Broadway line is a backbone for today and for the future. Stopping half the distance is not a backbone.

Allowing for LRT to be built as an intermediary step to future RRT is just wishful thinking. Once infrastructure is built, it'll stay. Besides, building a replacement RRT extension 20 years down the road will just be astronomical in cost. Who's going to pay for that?

If there's to be any LRT/streetcar hub planned, it should be at Arbutus... but not to UBC, it should be for north-south along the ROW, either as a circulator north to downtown or south into Kerrisdale and back eastbound.

Attitudes towards mass transit on the west side will need to change. We are getting there, but relenting to NIMBYs or their arguments is just dumb. The NIMBYs' role is important to know what possible concerns there are, but really they are just out for their own interests, not those of their community, the neighbourhood, the city, the region -- despite them saying otherwise. I still shake my head when I think of the WERA story where residents oppose taller buildings and additional rental housing.
     
     
  #3315  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2010, 8:15 PM
mrjauk mrjauk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 555
I'm just catching up on this thread after a few days away.

I think that this public consultation process is just a posturing exercise to placate certain stakeholders and the decision to use Skytrain has all but been made. I have a couple of questions, the answers to which some of you may know:

1) How firm is the estimated $2.8 billion cost of the M-Line extension to UBC?

2) What is a reasonable estimate for an LRT along the same route that could handle the capacity required/desired by Translink? In other words, we all know that zweisystem's b.s. estimate of $10 million/km is pure fantasy, but I don't think I've seen an estimate of how much an LRT extension would actually cost. A poster above noted that just to purchase the trains necessary would cost almost $400 million. And that's without a cent being spent on either the rails or a maintenance/storage facility.

3) What is a credible estimate of the difference in operating cost between Skytrain and LRT?

Thanks.
     
     
  #3316  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2010, 12:37 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
A rant on the St. Clair West project in Toronto:

http://www.trashtalkthettc.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33&start=0
TTC Insanity on St. Clair West

Postby Fed Up » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:10 am
I live on St. Clair Avenue West. When I moved into the neighborhood 5 years ago it was a lovely, peaceful place to live ... and then the TTC decided to destroy the street.

The dedicated streetcar project has changed the complexion of the area completely. Traffic has been snarled. Noise has skyrocketed. Bicycles have been pushed off the road and onto the sidewalk. Drivers have become confused as to what to do on the roads. Accidents have increased. Businesses have been shuttered. All in all, the dedicated streetcar project, which virtually brought the street to a standstill for nearly 4 years and ran astronomically over budget, is an absolute disaster.

St. Clair streetcars shared the road with cars and bicycles for years. The street is wide and, between Yonge and Bathurst, predominantly residential. Before the TTC destroyed the neighborhood traffic was able to flow through 3 lanes in each direction. St. Clair is a wide street. There was enough room for cars to park along St. Clair. Cars of all sizes were able to move briskly along the 4 middle lanes (2 in each direction) without coming anywhere near the parked cars by the curb lanes. When streetcars traveled along they would move through traffic with ease. The world is different now.

The dedicated streetcar tracks were forced onto the public despite countless attempts by the citizens of the area to resist. The TTC was going to do what it wanted to do and no taxpayer was going to get in the way!

Now, with the dedicated streetcar near completion (only the western most portion of the project remains unfinished), the street is a mess. The dedicated tracks have taken over half the street. They have squeezed car traffic into 2 ultra thin lanes that, during summer months, can barely accommodate 2 cars driving side by side. In winter, with snow gathering along the edge of the lanes, there is no way for two large vehicles to pass each other. Trucks? No chance. What about bicycles? St. Clair is a cyclists worst nightmare. It's a death trap. Not only are the auto lanes undersized, they also swerve endlessly. The white lines separating the lanes look like they were painted by someone way over the legal limit. The reason for their constant swerving is the need for a 3rd lane to be created at every stop light along St. Clair. The dedicated streetcar has eliminated the possibility of left turns at dozens of streets along the route. In order for drivers to turn left, they actually have to make a U turn at a designated U turn point. Once at these U turn points, cars are squeezed into undersized U turn lanes alongside the dedicated streetcar tracks. What about the standard traffic lanes? The TTC decided that it would simply narrow the lane markings to accommodate the turn lane. Result: Three lanes that are too narrow for cars, too narrow for buses, too narrow for trucks, and too narrow to allow bicycles through.

I have much more to write about the following:

1. Over a dozen lights for drivers to sort out when stopped at a St. Clair intersection (pedestrian lights, traffic lights, u turn lights, ttc lights ...)
2. Near empty dedicated lanes that can't serve any purpose for the 98% of the time that a streetcar is not rolling along their tracks
3. The 120 businesses that were shut during the construction
4. The budget and the out of control cost over runs
5. The constant honking from fed up drivers which continues from morning 'til night
6. The bicycles that are now forced onto the sidewalks because there is no room for them on the roads anymore
7. Much, much more ...


...

With a website called "TrashTalkTheTTC" you'd expect some rants, but I hope that the businesses along Broadway are aware of the downside to the St. Clair West project, and use it as a cautionary tale for their Broadway tram/streetcar/lrt desires.
     
     
  #3317  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2010, 1:02 AM
Overground's Avatar
Overground Overground is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 904
Broadway using Google Earth is pretty much the exact width of St Clair West too.
     
     
  #3318  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2010, 1:17 AM
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overground View Post
Broadway using Google Earth is pretty much the exact width of St Clair West too.
Let this report on the St. Clair Street LRT disaster be a warning to whomever thinks LRT to UBC is a good thing.

As many members including myself have said: Think long term. It has to be RRT all the way
     
     
  #3319  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2010, 1:59 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
I was reading through the “Getting it Right” (Kelman and Soberman) report about the St. Clair streetcar project when it came out, and it estimates that $106 Million was spent refurbishing 6.8 KM of streetcar track. This is up from the original 2003 estimate of $35 Million, which was later revised to an estimate of $65 Million when the project started in 2005. The project was substantially finished in 2010, but only after 8 months of court battles & reviews, so actual construction time was 4 years - with work stoppages that left parts of St. Clair street and sidewalks as an idle construction zone.


Using that number we get $ 15.5 Million per KM, so the 12.9 KM Broadway line to UBC would work out to $201 Million.

But the $106 M cost of the St. Clair project was to refurbish an existing streetcar line. With Broadway, it would be all-new construction, so we would have to add all the extra engineering and construction. ie: below-surface relocation of Water, Sewer, Telus, Hydro, Cable utilities (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone) so they are not in the way of the track beds during actual track construction (or they are relocated deeper out of the way), as well as utilities relocation to accommodate the platforms. There also needs to be easy access to these utilities in the future so their maintenance can be done without having to dig up streetcar tracks.

This estimate doesn't include the streetcars because St. Clair already had a full fleet - which were idled or used on other lines during the project. A previous author estimates this to be $450 Million for new trains.

This estimate also doesn't include a new OMC somewhere for this new line. Wasn't the OMC for the C-Line $150 million?

Back of the envelope numbers are now $800 Million not including the utilities relocation, and detailed engineering studies and estimates. And not including the other 'gotchas' you only find once digging starts.

An example: are we actually sure the old streetcar tracks & ties on Broadway were ripped up? or just paved over? Calgary had an expensive surprise when they were rebuilding & widening the 16th Avenue / Trans Canada Highway when they discovered entire blocks of abandoned and forgotten streetcar tracks. The schedule was set back for months while the rails and creosote-covered ties were removed, and the hazardous ground had to be remediated because of the creosote leaching from the ties for over 100 years.


I'm happy with using $800 Million as the minimum figure for putting trains on Broadway. However, I won't be surprised to see that figure reach over $1,200 Million once the utilities relocation cost estimates and other engineering estimates are added on.
     
     
  #3320  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2010, 2:07 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overground View Post
Broadway using Google Earth is pretty much the exact width of St Clair West too.
I've heard that the remaining two lanes were narrowed so much that it's hard to get between a parked car and a stopped train.

And cyclists are again using what's left of the sidewalks because too many of them were getting 'doored' because a driver's door on a parked car would intrude into the driving lane when it was opened wide.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:47 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.