Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by santak003

Redefining maximum capacity of LRT at grade for Arbutus to UBC corridor: From 7200 to 36000 pphpd (and leaving LRT as a contender to skytrain): “Jan 2019 Rail Rapid Transit Study to UBC” (aka Slam the Tram).

The benefits of light rail run deep. Safety, Reliability, Comfort, Cost and Capacity.

“LRT is demand-responsive in that the length of trains and the service frequency can be easily adjusted when required”

In the Jan 2019 Rail Rapid Transit Study to UBC (aka “Slam the Tram”), McElhanney Consulting essentially knee-capped the LRT by denying the major pillar of “demand responsiveness” , by effectively limiting the LRT train to a theoretical maximum operating capacity at 7200 pphpd by limiting headways to 4 minutes and vehicle lengths to 2 train consists @ 80m total length with carrying capacity of 240 for each train unit for a max carrying capacity of 480 persons.

The rest of the report eliminated the LRT at grade from consideration for Arbutus to UBC, all because of this max capacity limit of 7200 pphpd.

Using data from Vancouver’s operational environment, an argument is laid out that the actual maximum capacity that should have been used in the report is 36000 due to two factors: Vehicle Carrying Capacity should be adjusted to 1200 from 480 and minimum headway should be adjusted from 4 minutes to 2 minutes. The argument for this is laid out in three separate documents (backgrounders).

The backgrounders will illuminate certain concepts while using conservative estimates to arrive at results and most importantly how the operational capacity risk of implementing LRT at grade is LOW and sufficient for 2050 time horizons:

- How and when to trust the minimum headway formula
- How the minimum headway formula does not account for traffic signal priority
- How the minimum headway formula assumes that traffic congestion/saturation is at a reasonable level
- How the minimum headway formula incorporates the level of bunching you are designing for
- How, in a well run operating environment like Vancouver, the dwell time of the train and it's variation is the main element to achieve low minimum headway
- How runtime data from Vancouver streets shows that traffic in Vancouver is at a low level of saturation
- How traffic signal priority at low saturation levels of traffic can be applied in a preemptive way with no effects on cross traffic (Low Risk of implementation)
- How 98% of the westside has 160m block lengths and the two locations where it is not (120m at Macdonald and Westbrook) should trade off pedestrian access for block length
- How by changing the train vehicles, one can achieve a higher capacity for 160m block lengths



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

LRT is great. It's a great technology that has a time and place for sure.

But there is no reason it needs to prove itself the best in every situation.

Just because it's possible to make the LRT trains obscenely long and dizzyingly frequent doesn't mean that it would be good idea, or that it would remain cheap. Going to theoretical capacities is also going to theoretical costs.

The point of LRT is not to go toe to toe with Skytrain. They are both tools that have their place. I have a drawer full of different sized screw drivers, but I don't go around trying to use my favorite one in every job.

LRT does not need to be the solution for every situation to justify its existence. LRT is the right choice for certain jobs, Skytrain for others. But don't warp the technology's capabilities to meet the criteria just because it's your favorite.

I can't help but think people defend using LRT on Broadway by saying it's capable of RRT stats, do so only because they can't admit it's not the right choice. Because in their minds admitting it's the wrong choice would mean it's the wrong choice always. And if it's the wrong choice always, then that means the only choice is Skytrain. And if Skytrain is the only choice, then my desired 3rd string transit line won't happen because Skytrain is too expensive for it. Therefore I have to campaign against Skytrain to validate LRT as a choice, a choice I need for my transit line I want built. It's a brain disease.

Sometimes it feels like people who compulsively need to directly compare LRT and Skytrain have the same brain disease as people who need to constantly talk about how their hands aren't small.

I call this disease zwei syndrome.

[Jimbo604]

[djh]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

From the project website: broadwaysubway.ca





Source: https://www.broadwaysubway.ca/about/stations/

This diagram only just crystallized for me that the station entrance will have to be incorporated into the current rebuild/renovation of the RBC building, happening right now on the Northeast corner of Broadway/Granville.

Will the RBC developers be doing the station entrance build, or will they be leaving that as an unfinished raw "black box" with Translink's construction team coming in to do the work at a later date?

It also presumes that the two parties have been talking and coordinating their work for a long time. Positioning of walls, floors, support columns and beams, etc. I didn't realise detailed station planning had been done as long ago as when the plans for the RBC building had been submitted.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I can't help but think people defend using LRT on Broadway by saying it's capable of RRT stats, do so only because they can't admit it's not the right choice. Because in their minds admitting it's the wrong choice would mean it's the wrong choice always. And if it's the wrong choice always, then that means the only choice is Skytrain. And if Skytrain is the only choice, then my desired 3rd string transit line won't happen because Skytrain is too expensive for it. Therefore I have to campaign against Skytrain to validate LRT as a choice, a choice I need for my transit line I want built.

yes, this. hits the nail on the head. or should i say screws the screw in with the right screw driver.


as for the stations, single entrances, on one end of long platforms. sigh.

[waves]

Originally Posted by djh

This diagram only just crystallized for me that the station entrance will have to be incorporated into the current rebuild/renovation of the RBC building, happening right now on the Northeast corner of Broadway/Granville.

Will the RBC developers be doing the station entrance build, or will they be leaving that as an unfinished raw "black box" with Translink's construction team coming in to do the work at a later date?

It also presumes that the two parties have been talking and coordinating their work for a long time. Positioning of walls, floors, support columns and beams, etc. I didn't realise detailed station planning had been done as long ago as when the plans for the RBC building had been submitted.

The details for this station were posted a while ago. I can't remember the source, but I did manage to download them a while ago. I have reuploaded them to my own imgur to share with you:





Source: imgur.com, waves.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by djh

This diagram only just crystallized for me that the station entrance will have to be incorporated into the current rebuild/renovation of the RBC building, happening right now on the Northeast corner of Broadway/Granville.

Will the RBC developers be doing the station entrance build, or will they be leaving that as an unfinished raw "black box" with Translink's construction team coming in to do the work at a later date?

It also presumes that the two parties have been talking and coordinating their work for a long time. Positioning of walls, floors, support columns and beams, etc. I didn't realise detailed station planning had been done as long ago as when the plans for the RBC building had been submitted.

Some extra info from last year's UDP review:

This was fortunate for the applicant team, as they were unapologetic in their belief that the sense of motion created by the vertical fins was necessary to relate to the transit station below. That section will be designed by a different architectural firm, which explains why key infrastructure, like the fire command post and standpipe access, have yet to be programmed into this concept. Many believed this actually presented an interesting opportunity, and none were concerned about the lane closure.

As the passenger volume here is expected to be similar to the Expo Line’s Stadium-Chinatown station, the public realm factored heavily in the consensus

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/1...e-aspirations/

[officedweller]

The developer is PCI, I think.

[jollyburger]

The diagrams were from Daily Hive..

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skyt...ign-renderings

The guy who found prints in the dumpster also mentioned this:

The first page of PCI’s explanatory notes, which accompany the blueprints, refers to “Integration Works” including “those works and elements of the Head House or related to the integration of the Head House into the PCI Development not included in the Finishing Work”.

“Head House” is an architectural term commonly used by the railroad industry to denote an element of a train station, such as an entrance.

The PCI Integration Works detailed on the blueprints are indicated in the explanatory notes as including:

street level entrance to the Head House situated at the corner of West Broadway and Granville Street;
head house structure;
entrance plaza;
stairs, escalator and elevator providing access to the station concourse level;
and connection opening to the station concourse.

https://www.straight.com/life/126110...ation-new-west

[Migrant_Coconut]

The million dollar question: is the station separate from the tower, or does construction have to wait for the rezoning approval which has to wait for the corridor plan?

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

as for the stations, single entrances, on one end of long platforms. sigh.

It's either that, an entrance in the middle of the block, or a cut n cover in the middle of the street. Least horrible option.

Or maybe there'll be a mezzanine level?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I can't help but think people defend using LRT on Broadway by saying it's capable of RRT stats, do so only because they can't admit it's not the right choice. Because in their minds admitting it's the wrong choice would mean it's the wrong choice always. And if it's the wrong choice always, then that means the only choice is Skytrain. And if Skytrain is the only choice, then my desired 3rd string transit line won't happen because Skytrain is too expensive for it. Therefore I have to campaign against Skytrain to validate LRT as a choice, a choice I need for my transit line I want built. It's a brain disease...

... I call this disease zwei syndrome.

I'm not trying to downplay the victims of Zwei syndrome, but there's plenty of others:

- Europhilia: (French/Dutch/Swiss/Czech city) has pretty streetcars, why don't we have pretty streetcars?

- Newurbanimania: Streetcars create happy little villages... somehow. Crowds of people stuck at the intersection make the villages look alive. This is the future of urban living.

- Cyclemyopia: The city should be bike-sized - if it's not within twenty blocks like my regular bike ride, why should it be easy to reach at all?

- Authoriphobia: TransLink and (politician/council) are corrupt to the core, and anything they say is good should be questioned to the last detail!

- Affluenza: I'll take anything that doesn't Bring Drugs, Bring Crime, They're Rapists (TM) into my neighbourhood and lowers my property values!

Of course, there's a lot of overlap, but hey, it's a developing field.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by dleung

What's the rationale behind keeping the platforms between streets rather than centering them at the station entrances?

Just because the ground level entrance is at one end of the station doesn't mean that the platforms need to be accessed from one end. The ticketing hall, escalators and stairways mean that platform access will be considerably offset from the ground level entrance.

[officedweller]

Probably so the excavation disrupts fewer intersections.

BTW - Escalators on platforms are usually staggered from station-to-station to prevent crowding at one place in trains.
Repeat customers always know where to stand in their train so they are at the base of the escalator when they arrive at their station.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The million dollar question: is the station separate from the tower, or does construction have to wait for the rezoning approval which has to wait for the corridor plan?

You can see the tower core in the plans, waiting for the tower phase.
The tower elevator shaft with the single elongated 'X' looks wide enough for 3 elevators.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The million dollar question: is the station separate from the tower, or does construction have to wait for the rezoning approval which has to wait for the corridor plan?



It's either that, an entrance in the middle of the block, or a cut n cover in the middle of the street. Least horrible option.

Or maybe there'll be a mezzanine level?

Again, based on what was said at the UDP review, it seems this station will be completed well in advance of the line. There's no rezoning needed, as the surface building is going ahead under the existing zoning, but it is designed to allow for an expansion in the future.

[scryer]

I'm late to the party but for all of the LRT discussion on Broadway:



Someone mentioned it before that LRT has a time and a place and I agree. IMO, it's a very niche technology and a very niche transit solution that gets marketed incorrectly to the public and is implemented inappropriately across the world.

Now back to the topic at hand...

[Rico]

Originally Posted by scryer

I'm late to the party but for all of the LRT discussion on Broadway:



Someone mentioned it before that LRT has a time and a place and I agree. IMO, it's a very niche technology and a very niche transit solution that gets marketed incorrectly to the public and is implemented inappropriately across the world.

Now back to the topic at hand...

As someone who likes Skytrain I am going to disagree. LRT is quite a flexible concept, Skytrain is definitely more niche on the grand scale. That said history and the layout of Vancouver corridors has made Skytrain the right choice for us in many applications and without any question the right choice for Broadway.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Rico

As someone who likes Skytrain I am going to disagree. LRT is quite a flexible concept, Skytrain is definitely more niche on the grand scale. That said history and the layout of Vancouver corridors has made Skytrain the right choice for us in many applications and without any question the right choice for Broadway.

That's why the meme says "LRT on Broadway" .

RRT isn't really a limited niche though like LRT is in terms of RRT's main function. RRT of all technologies (whether it's heavy metro or automated) requires grade-separation from regular traffic in order for it to work as a rapid transit solution. Whereas LRT's functions are a lot murkier; and I wouldn't call them flexible because a lot of their functions can be addressed by BRT solutions. We have to remember that people use transit for its real-world purposes, not because it's "easy" to implement on paper. I, myself, am not necessarily anti-LRT in all contexts but LRT is such a misused technology in a lot of places that Metro Vancouver should really tread carefully with it. But that's a discussion for the Arbutus Greenway thread.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by dleung

What's the rationale behind keeping the platforms between streets rather than centering them at the station entrances? I'm assuming there isn't any disruption at grade besides at the station entrance/staging areas?

I think they are trying to only disrupt 1 major street instead of 2 when the dig the big hole in the ground.

[Migrant_Coconut]

To clarify, the station is about a block long: they can dig 1/2 of the block, the intersection, and 1/2 of the other block.... or they can dig one whole block and leave the intersection alone.

[officedweller]

I think the concern would be disrupting multiple major north-south arterials roughly at the same time if they dug under intersections.

Canada Line had bailey bridges over the open cut - can't recall if they were 2 lanes wide or 4 lanes wide.
King Ed was probably 4 lanes. ... but even those would still slow down traffic (including buses) and probably restrict turns.