Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[eduardo88]

Originally Posted by Whalleyboy

I got a plan lets drop the ever green line and do surrey and broadway instead lol=P

No objections from me there.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Political_R

Broadway should be priority number 1. The infrastructure will be used to capacity. Although I do wonder, if the Evergreen line was not constructed, where would trains turn around on the M-line? Would a turn around be practical? Or would it be better to have the Evergreen Line to handle every 2-4 minute service from UBC? Either way, Skytrain would have to run every 90 seconds to UBC from Broadway-Commercial and beyond.

Broadway should be the priority corridor and built as soon as possible unless Evergreen line is needed to help with train turn arounds. The ridership is there, it needs grade separated Skytrain. It is time to get it done.

Agreed. 100%

[Spork]

Debate going on at Vancity Buzz right now... http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2010/09/metro-vancouver-density-map.html#more

[Alex Mackinnon]

I just got back from UBC's latest bus loop consult. There's 2 big things I came away with. Firstly, UBC can't support layovers for BRT or really much more than status quo service and secondly they're putting all their eggs into LRT or preferably Skytrain. Above grade or at grade not being an issue.

Their options pretty much limit the bus capacity at 30 slots for layover. Currently the bus loops have 26 slots. There's not going to be a whole lot of room for expansion.

[SFUVancouver]

The VanCity Buzz blog had technical issues with my post. First is said it was too long so I shortened it and then I kept getting 'HTML size error' errors. So in the end I don't know if my post even made it up. Here's what the final version worked out:

I thought that the process for qualifying to get a rail rapid transit line was clear: Identify major regional nodes of employment, education, and population growth and then build up local bus service along connecting corridors with linkages to the rapid transit. Once the demand outstrips the supply add express bus (B-Line) service and run that until it is full. Then, and only then, do you start looking at the options for full rapid transit. Because land use and transportation are fundamentally linked the cities housing the identified nodes and corridors should direct new growth into these concentration areas in order to benefit from the improved accessibility and generate the required densities to warrant further transit improvements. Central Broadway and UBC already easily qualify under this criteria as they are huge trip generators and are both steadily growing.

I am entirely in favour of dramatically increased transit service south of the Fraser and I think that rail transit will become a necessity at some point in the future once the local bus service is built up and B-Line express bus service takes hold and pedestrian-oriented residential and employment densities increase along major corridors. Translink has short-changed people south of the Fraser for a long time and that was not fair. It was not necessarily the wrong thing to do from an operational budget standpoint since bus service in low density areas hemorrhages money and is responsible for the structural deficits at Translink. It was the wrong thing to do from a political standpoint and the frustration South of the Fraser is justified.

However with this said, I do not think that Surrey should be able to jump the queue and get rapid rail transit in the immediate future when it would come at the expense of the enormous need that already exists for an extension of rapid transit to UBC. Building an apology SkyTrain line that runs through low density residential areas and farmland en route to Langley is simply not the answer.

Ultimately we are in the midst of a "serving versus shaping" debate. Should we serve the huge existing demand generated by people who have already committed to taking transit instead of driving, or should we shape regional growth with rapid transit so that overall more people will be able to make the choice to take transit at some point in the future. We need to do both but with the expense and service profile of rail rapid transit it is foolish to put it where it will not be assured to do the most good.

[eduardo88]

Good post, I completely agree with everything you say. I really do hope the UBC line becomes priority #1 for TransLink after (or even ahead) of Evergreen. Surrey doesn't need more SkyTrain for now, but studies into LRT should probably be done.

[CLC]

^ Regardless of building cost, operating LRT in Surrey lines will likely be heavily subsidized. They should run b-line/BRT first, which can justify the demand for very long time.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/...ajectory-densify-the-core-or-extend-out/
I can't believe Zwei had to use an alias (Malcome Jonstone) to support his own opinion in Transportpolitics

[Gordon]

There is no way that any Rapid Transit project will leap ahead of The Evergreen Line. There is a meeting of the Mayor's ouncil on Transit in Late October or November so there may well be an announcement at that time?

The #99 tends to be standing room in both directions PM peak times.

[cornholio]

No way Evergreen line gets canned, and it shouldent. To much time, money, and planning has gone in to it, it needs to be done now. After the Evergreen line I agree that they should focus in on the Broadway extension to atleast Arbutus. It would even make sense for the provincial government to step in on that one and help with the funding as the line would likely not require any subsidies and maybe even pay for its self. If it can atleast pay the interest on the loans then it would be a darn good investment that should be made asap. The only thing that needs to be studied is at what point and by how much would the line need to be subsidised and as a result where to trerminate it, probably either way to UBC or stop it at Arbutus and extend it at a future date. Surrey should focus in on a good bline service, invest the money and get some routes down King Georger, Fraser Highway and 104th. Put in some bus lanes and some signal priority lights and that should be good until there is money and demand for rapid transit expansion(and money to subsidise it).

[wrenegade]

It should be strict Translink policy that no city/route/alignment will even be considered for rapid transit (skytrain) without previously having a B-Line on that route.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by awvan

It should be strict Translink policy that no city/route/alignment will even be considered for rapid transit (skytrain) without previously having a B-Line on that route.

And a real B-Line, not the 97 *shudder*

[SpikePhanta]

They should build the extension for UBc first, because does anyone remember last friday? When the expo line was down the main route to get to downtown was cut, the downtown skytrain portion is already at capacity and so is the Broadway station, if we extend the line to UBC there would be another option getting into downtown by taking the melinium line to Cambie/Broadway station then taker the canada line down into downtown.
Not to mention it would be easier to finance the project since the density and current ridership will help the line from the get-go, and with the arituclated buses freed from the 99 bline service they can start several Bline routes in Surrey, then build ridership levels and determine whether to extend the line to surrey to newton, guildford or down fraser highway to fleetwood.
not to mention build the UBC extension first get the surrey extension sooner.

That was what i posted in the vancity buzz article.

[punface]

The Tyee has posted an excerpt about the history of streetcars from Patrick Condon's book. Halfway down, he covers his opinions on the Broadway Corridor: http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/09/16/StreetcarToBeDesired/

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by punface

The Tyee has posted an excerpt about the history of streetcars from Patrick Condon's book. Halfway down, he covers his opinions on the Broadway Corridor: http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/09/16/StreetcarToBeDesired/

How the heck did he get those numbers?!

- total Canada Line Capital cost - $2.1 billion
- total distance is 19km, but is partially split so let's call the split track 4km so we have a total of 15 km end to end(ie. as 1/2 go one way, 1/2 the other way so just fully count 1 way)
- runs for 19 hours/day with 14 trains, 6 am to 1am is 19 hours. Yes for some of those hours 16 run, 14 run for the evening and i'm guessing 10 for late evening, but it all averages out. Also not all trains start at the same time, but in real life trains start shortly after 5am.
- 25 mins for an end to end trip

So each train makes ~45.6 trips at 15 km is 684 km/day.
For all 14 trains that makes 9,576 km/day or 3.5 million km/year.
Let assume lifetime of 25 years at same level of service = 87.5 million km
So $2.1 billion/87.5 million km = $24/km
Per day, that's ~$230,000 in capital cost(same number if you divide $2.1 billion by 25 years at 365 days/year)

Now if we take 100,000 trips and average each trip to 7.5km, that's 750,000 passenger-km per day.
$230,000 divide by 750,000 passenger-km per day gives us $0.31 per passenger-km.

Somehow Condon has just the skytrain capital cost at $2.34 per passenger-km.

So my number is roughly 1/8th of Condon's number, even with assuming we've reached peak usage right now. Am I missing something?

[satishreddy]

I too have looked at Condon's numbers. We don't know what assumptions he is making. Here is my simple calclulation

$2.1 billion capital cost
7% annual interest rate
25 year amortization period

Using a mortgage calculator, this means the monthly payment is

14,842,260

If we assume 36,000,000 boardings per year, this means 3,000,000 per month. Assuming 7.5km ride = 4.7 miles, I get 14.1 million (passenger-mile) per month. Hence I compute capital cost at

$14,842,260/14,100,000 (passenger-mile) is about $1.05/passenger-mile. This This compares to $2.34/(passenger-mile) computed by Condon. Of course, he doesn't explain his numbers.

MadMigs: you report in units 1/(passenger-km) and don't include interest in the capital cost, so our numbers are different.

[cabotp]

Notice also how in the first graph it compares the capital cost of each system.

Then in the paragraph before the 2nd graph he talks about looking at the difference between the operating costs. Yet the graph includes the capital cost as well.

If you look at the difference this would be the operating cost.

Street Car = $0.52
Trolley = $1.08
Skytrain = $0.32
LRT = $0.41
BRT = $0.90
Diesel Bus = $1.31
Prius = $0.32
Explorer = $0.52

Although the problem with the Prius and Explorer is no one knows what kind of travel pattern are we talking about. A Prius would be good in the city where the electric motor can always run. But once you get on the highway its fuel cost would start to rise.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by punface

The Tyee has posted an excerpt about the history of streetcars from Patrick Condon's book.

Prof. Condon seems to be using the idea that streetcars were used to spur new development back in the 1920's as some sort of justification for them today. But the reality has changed a LOT from those days.

A modern city needs a hierarchical transit system. You need grade-separated backbones fed by medium- and lower-capacity lines. Grade separation costs money - of course it's going to be more expensive. Arguing that Skytrain is wrong because of it's cost is like arguing that we don't need high-speed Internet between cities because the cost of the fibre infrastructure is more expensive than my home router.

[CLC]

I would rather read Zwei's blog for fun, than reading article from some "ivory tower professor".

btw, where does his LRT and streetcar cost number come from? an average of such systems in US+Canada? And His BRT number is meaningless if he used Vancouver b-line (simply a limited-stop bus route) in calculation.

I also found it funny that such an "expert" have actually stated that he confused about the distinction between LRT and streetcar in a comment at Zwei's blog previously. Is he really able to clear-cut the classification?

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by CLC

I would rather read Zwei's blog for fun, than reading article from some "ivory tower professor".

btw, where does his LRT and streetcar cost number come from? an average of such systems in US+Canada? And His BRT number is meaningless if he used Vancouver b-line (simply a limited-stop bus route) in calculation.

I also found it funny that such an "expert" have actually stated that he confused about the distinction between LRT and streetcar in a comment at Zwei's blog previously. Is he really able to clear-cut the classification?

One thing to remember about Mr Condon is he is not a tranportation expert. He is just as much as an expert as you and I.

His field of study has to do with how a city is built from a living / working view point. Sure transportation comes into that. To him the perfect world is a city with small compact communities. Where people on travel within that community. Of course reality throws that whole idea out the window.

Just remember that he only advocates street cars because they are the best option if you live in a small compact community.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by cabotp

One thing to remember about Mr Condon is he is not a tranportation expert. He is just as much as an expert as you and I.

His field of study has to do with how a city is built from a living / working view point. Sure transportation comes into that. To him the perfect world is a city with small compact communities. Where people on travel within that community. Of course reality throws that whole idea out the window.

Just remember that he only advocates street cars because they are the best option if you live in a small compact community.

The issue is, whether he is in proper position to give out those exact cost number for different type of "transit"(including Toyota prius )? It would be better if he simply gives a large number range, especially since his numbers were apparently compiled from systems of different cities, which are usually orange and apple difference in terms of transportation needs and other circumstances.