Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Ease of use isn't synonymous with "no transfers". Easy transfers, perhaps. In my experience of transit systems around the world (London - my home town, New York, Paris) I would say the majority of journeys on those systems involve transfers. It's not great, but it's somewhat inevitable.

London, New York, and Paris are older metro systems. Newer systems try to eliminate the transfer, which will increase the ridership as shown on a few Metro Vancouver bus routes.

The kind of transfer that would've been used between Commercial Drive to the LRT station would be somewhat of a long walk... similar to the Broadway-Commerical Drive transfer. The transfer used in between Evergreen LRT (if it was LRT) to the SkyTrain network would've been incredibly annoying. Both these transfers aren't seamless nor are they easy. If the transfers are like the MTR, then they would've been more acceptable.


From Wikipedia

I'm sorry but saying MAJOR CORRIDOR in caps doesn't make your argument any more compelling. I already pointed out some other streets that could take the traffic upthread.

I don't believe increasing traffic to other corridors that are stretched to the limit as it currently is a solution to the problem.

[biketrouble]

"that are stretched to the limit"

[citation needed]

Regarding transfers, point taken. But if a transfer for this journey were a huge deal breaker, then we would expect 99 B-line ridership to be suffering - which appears to be far from the case. So my argument here is let's not gold plate a system to fix problems that riders already seem to be able to live with.

I would not be pushing this point if I did not believe that many of the people arguing for skytrain on this basis would be perfectly happy to argue exactly the opposite in favour of skytrain when it comes to Malcolm's arguments, as seen frequently on Stephen Rees' blog, against the Canada line because it now forces bus users from south of Richmond to transfer in order to travel to downtown.

[dubsH]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Ease of use isn't synonymous with "no transfers". Easy transfers, perhaps. In my experience of transit systems around the world (London - my home town, New York, Paris) I would say the majority of journeys on those systems involve transfers. It's not great, but it's somewhat inevitable.

Sorry, I don't see where you are disagreeing with me. You asked "why Skytrain" and "why fewest transfers are important". I replied because it cuts down on time because of lack of transfers (for incoming Coquitlam/Burnaby commuters), and that overall, Skytrain will be faster than LRT (for incoming Canada/Expo line commuters). The faster people can get to their destinations, the more they will want to use transit.

What is ease of use then? No fare gates? Few steps to get from a station to a desired location? Easily recognizable? Please, do explain, because whatever you say most likely won't refute my point anyway.

deasine already explained your other point, so:

But if a transfer for this journey were a huge deal breaker, then we would expect 99 B-line ridership to be suffering - which appears to be far from the case. So my argument here is let's not gold plate a system to fix problems that riders already seem to be able to live with.

Riders "seem to be able to live with" the 99 B-Line because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE (capitalized for emphasis). Let's just leave things the way they are, right? That's how you capture more people to ride transit, let them see how bad current conditions are!

In all seriousness though, people take the 99 B-Line because their other option is to drive. UBC is a major destination and where a large portion of the riders end up. If you gave them the option of choosing LRT or 99 B-Line, if LRT is even slower than the 99 B-Line (and at even less frequent intervals), then most of them will choose the 99 B-Line. Same with commuters to other parts of Broadway. The only commuters I can see choosing LRT are those traveling at small distances and would wish to see many LRT stations - but then again, why don't they just take the #9?

I would not be pushing this point if I did not believe that many of the people arguing for skytrain on this basis would be perfectly happy to argue exactly the opposite in favour of skytrain when it comes to Malcolm's arguments, as seen frequently on Stephen Rees' blog, against the Canada line because it now forces bus users from south of Richmond to transfer in order to travel to downtown.

That's not really an argument at all. I'm not sure if people knew that the service from South Surrey/White Rock would terminate at Bridgeport before Cambie was chosen as the preferred route alignment. Even then, how would LRT have been any different? If you looked back at previous threads about the Canada Line and the Bridgeport terminus, you would've found quite a few Skytrain supporters disagreeing with the decision wrt Translink terminating bus service from South Surrey/Delta at Bridgeport.

[NetMapel]

Originally Posted by deasine

London, New York, and Paris are older metro systems. Newer systems try to eliminate the transfer, which will increase the ridership as shown on a few Metro Vancouver bus routes.

The kind of transfer that would've been used between Commercial Drive to the LRT station would be somewhat of a long walk... similar to the Broadway-Commerical Drive transfer. The transfer used in between Evergreen LRT (if it was LRT) to the SkyTrain network would've been incredibly annoying. Both these transfers aren't seamless nor are they easy. If the transfers are like the MTR, then they would've been more acceptable.


From Wikipedia



I don't believe increasing traffic to other corridors that are stretched to the limit as it currently is a solution to the problem.

Interesting that you used HK's subway to try to prove your point. Notice that 99% of HK's subway system is GRADE-SEPARATED. Broadway is not big enough to create a ROW at-grade system, and taking driving lanes away from Broadway for a rail line will only create more traffic congestion on that street, it's as simple as that.

[biketrouble]

Actually, what I asked is this: "Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway." I've not had a good answer to that question.

I am not arguing for leaving things as they are, but the problem with transport along broadway as it stands is that there is not enough capacity, not that (some) people have to to transfer to use it. So I just see the transfer issue as a red herring, so long as capacity is addressed.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Actually, what I asked is this: "Is the highest goal of the transit system to provide a seamless journey from coquitlam and burnaby to UBC? Is it that important a goal when people travelling on the Expo and RAV lines will have to transfer anyway." I've not had a good answer to that question.

I am not arguing for leaving things as they are, but the problem with transport along broadway as it stands is that there is not enough capacity, not that (some) people have to to transfer to use it. So I just see the transfer issue as a red herring, so long as capacity is addressed.

That's not the main goal. However, providing a higher capacity system for an area that has the potential of an extended city centre is important. The Broadway district is already busy as it stands and will continue to get busier as the Canada Line opens. Sure LRT can handle the current ridership: but it won't in the long run. There are many problems with LRT along Broadway. We aren't against LRT... we are against it on Broadway because of the various reasons that I don't want to repeat again.

[Canadian Mind]

With regards to a point Mr. X brought up about the frequency of stops of a LRT line, if the original author of those comments intended the stops to be on every block, then what would be even more appropriate than a LRT would be a tram system going down Broadway, something i could support.

But that still doesn't negate the speed and efficiency of an elevated or underground Skytrain line. while the tram would likely stop every 100 to 200 meters, skytrain would likely have atleast 600 to 1500 meters between stops for more efficient travel. And while Skytrain likely wont drop you off at the doorstep of where you want to go, if you dont want to walk there is currently the option of waiting at th station for a bus to arrive. Should a tram line be built all you would have to wait for is the tram to arrive to take you closer to your specific destination.

[DKaz]

The guy is thinking of providing 20,000 ppphd service with trains that stop every 200m?! Newsflash, 20,000 ppphd will require 110m long at least every 3 minutes. The train will travel no more than twice its length before stopping again and again and again and again. Hey people, LRT maintenance workers will be in demand to change brake pads and rewind motors due to excessive wear and tear!

[biketrouble]

So I've read all the arguments against LRT on broadway, especially with regards to capacity - and it seems to be based on the assumption that 20,000 pphpd is a desirable capacity for the route.

I am wondering where this assumption comes from. I notice that everyone talks about bus capacity in daily ridership, and LRT/trains in terms of people per hour per direction, so let's compare apples to apples. As I understand it, the current capacity of the 99 B-line is about 3600 pphpd (assuming 2 minute headways, which is a stretch.)

Portland appears to get 9,280 pphpd (their numbers) with 3 minute headways using 2 car trains without grade separation *in their downtown*, and even your "debunking myths" post acknowledges that 3-car trains would be feasible. The Portland MAX crosses a street grid with far shorter blocks than Broadway's, BTW.

So any way you split this, it seems like an LRT on broadway could achieve a higher capacity than the current M-line (8000 pphpd) and nearly triple current B-line capacity.

So why is it we need 20K pphpd again?

Also, one last word on cars. I agree that Broadway has the possibility of becoming an extended city centre - but if that happens, I would rather it's main drag was a Robson Street, not a Georgia Street.

[DKaz]

Because he boasts that LRTs can easily achieve 20,000 ppphd while Skytrain can barely achieve 20,000 ppphd. I'd just like for him to put his money where his mouth is, that's all.

Calgary has put a limit at 4-car trains which they're expanding their system to by 2015 which would equal 100m. 4-cars = 110m would still fit in a typical Broadway block (except a few here or there)

[Metro-One]

Ok guys, it seems that biketrouble is repeating himself over and over and i am guessing he is from the LRT lobby. Strange that he appeared from no where and is only posting on this thread. His trick right now is to focus on one point and say "why is that important?" Then we answer that one point which leads him to say "why is that the most important?" We tell him the other points then he choses one again and we go in a circle.

In the end it is when considering ALL points that skytrain makes the most sense. It is also building a system that will handle capacity into the future as well, not a band aid solution. If the Portland Max has such a higher pphpd then why is skytrain's ridership numbers more than double with fewer lines and less kms? has anyone ever noticed that all the best transit systems in the world have extensive grade separated rail?

Seems so pathetic to follow a nation (the US) that essentially has the world's worst transit systems.

[biketrouble]

Oh please - take off that tinfoil hat. Why do BB posters always want to believe that someone who disagrees with them is a sockpuppet.

I have been a member of this board for years and if you look back I am not a frequent commenter but my comments are there for all to read. Most recently I have been active on the Burrard Bike lane thread.

I am *not* a member of the LRT lobby. Actually up until quite recently I really had been advocating Skytrain without really thinking about it. For the most part the other side on this debate (GrumpyMalcolmZwei/Stephen Rees etc) mostly just wind me up.

SSP is one of the greatest sources of info about Vancouver, but recently it seems to have turned into a complete echo chamber and it's this that has made be want to jump in and question the assumptions that a lot of you guys seem to have.

Cheers,

The Trilateral Commission

[DKaz]

You just keep on questioning why why why.

Originally Posted by zweisystem

1. A twined tracked LRT line has the ability to carry over 20,000 persons per hour per direction

...

It is no great feat that a simple tram line in Hong Kong carries over 260,000 a day, or a modern LRT line in the same city carries over 25,000 pphpd in the peak hours. Yet the SkyTrain lobby bang the drums and shouts great things if SkyTrain achieves anything close to what modern LRT does in every day service. The LRT types do not cherry-pick statistics, rather state operational facts that pertain to light rail.

That's what he said which is why I stated to push 20,000 ppphd, we would have to so and so long trains running at so and so headways.

Originally Posted by zweisystem

It is not speed that attracts customers to transit, rather it is the overall ambiance of the system including ease of use, ease of ticketing, vehicle comfort (seating) and the seamless or no transfer journey.

He himself said that the seamless or no transfer journey is important in attracting ridership, this is another thing you questioned why to another user.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Oh please - take off that tinfoil hat. Why do BB posters always want to believe that someone who disagrees with them is a sockpuppet.

I have been a member of this board for years and if you look back I am not a frequent commenter but my comments are there for all to read. Most recently I have been active on the Burrard Bike lane thread.

I am *not* a member of the LRT lobby. Actually up until quite recently I really had been advocating Skytrain without really thinking about it. For the most part the other side on this debate (GrumpyMalcolmZwei/Stephen Rees etc) mostly just wind me up.

SSP is one of the greatest sources of info about Vancouver, but recently it seems to have turned into a complete echo chamber and it's this that has made be want to jump in and question the assumptions that a lot of you guys seem to have.

Cheers,

The Trilateral Commission

No worries. Some here feel you bring up good questions. Questions are good. They force accountability.

To be completely honest, though I would love fast efficient no-transfer grade-separated transit, there is one thing that appeals to me about LRT. Narrowing the Broadway corridor.

I too would prefer a Robson-street style Broadway corridor and LRT woudl obviously be a better avenue to stimulate this. If we could somehow have both, I would be very happy. I like the traffic calming measures that New West took down Columbia, for example. That's a major thoroughfare, and they've done a good job so far at calming traffic.

Saying that, though, I realize that it's an important artery for cars... so perhaps we'll have to do that to 4th instead with an LRT/streetcar down that route.

As for the 20k, I think Capacities much higher than the 99 B-Line are needed for a few reasons. One of them being if there were a rail connection along this corridor other east-west bus routes like the #33, #41, #25, #16 would see fewer riders as they transferred to the new line (assuming they're coming from the Canada Line).

You would see increased use of North South Bus lines on Cambie, Main, Granville, Oak to get to this artery, even if they were close to an east west bus route.

This would also provide a triangle of service, which is desirable as it makes any trip by rail alone only one transfer. More than anything else, transfers cost the most time.

[MalcolmTucker]

Calgary's in street sections operate at just under 10,000 phd with 3 car (75 m) trains. This is in the section where trains must obey traffic rules, and have no interaction with traffic besides cross streets, and buses (which don't turn left over the other track by route design).

To get anywhere close to 20,000 phd, you would need exclusive lanes, and actual stations (instead of in street boarding like in Toronto). You would also need longer trains, and not just signal priority, but signal control to make sure trains don't get stuck on blocks that are too short for them.

[nname]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Portland appears to get 9,280 pphpd (their numbers) with 3 minute headways using 2 car trains without grade separation *in their downtown*

That appears to be the theoretical number, do they actually running the LRT at that frequency? Last time I checked, they are running at 4-5 min frequency. As far as I know, the higher frequency you run the system, the more priority and grade separation you need to make, which drive up cost. Otherwise, you'll just end up with a bunch of LRV all bunch up together in some stretch of the road. Keep in mind that the Broadway corridor is also much longer than Portland Downtown, that means, more measures are need to run the train efficiently at higher frequency.

Speaking of downtown Portland... Does anyone really wish we build the LRT on Broadway that way? It seems like it take 15-16 to travel 2.6km of Portland Downtown (from Goose Hollow to Chinatown), so if we apply it to Broadway:
15min can get you just past Main street
30min can get you to Granville
45min can get you to somewhere between Macdonald and Alma
1hr is barely enough to reach the boundary of UEL

[DKaz]

Portland's MAX only travels slow in the downtown mall, just like Calgary's C-Train. Along Interstate Ave, the MAX's Yellow Line went about the speed limit -- 35mph I think. If they properly prioritized LRT on Broadway, probably under 30 minutes.

--OK it takes an hour 40 minutes for the Blue Line to travel 53 km including the downtown transit mall. That's an average speed for 31.7km/h. Broadway to UBC is 14.3 km which would be about 27-28 minutes? Skytrain would be 20-21 minutes @ 42.1km/h (Expo Line's operating speed).

MAX's Blue Line runs as frequently as 5 minutes while the Yellow Line is 10 minutes. All their lines are 15 minutes off peak. Broadway LRT would likely need to operate 3 minutes peak, 6 minutes midday, 10-12 minutes all other times. The traffic disruptions at Kingsway/Main, Cambie, and Granville are going to be FUN!

[biketrouble]

The 9,280 number for the Max comes from (sorry!) Malcolm Johnson quoting Gerald Fox here. The relevant passage says

"In Portland we operate a frequency of 3 minutes downtown in the peak hour, giving a one way peak hour capacity of 9,280."

BTW, MJ uses quotes from the letter here - actually about Translink's report on Skytrain vs. LRT on the Evergreen Line - in practically every post he writes on the subject of Skytrain. He has totally googlebombed "Gerald Fox skytrain", I had to go through pages of stuff to find anything other than MJ's favourite bits. The full letter is worth a read, as it gives some good examples of the ways reports can be skewed to suit an author's (Translink in this case) biases.

[nname]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Portland's MAX only travels slow in the downtown mall, just like Calgary's C-Train. Along Interstate Ave, the MAX's Yellow Line went about the speed limit -- 35mph I think. If they properly prioritized LRT on Broadway, probably under 30 minutes.

--OK it takes an hour 40 minutes for the Blue Line to travel 53 km including the downtown transit mall. That's an average speed for 31.7km/h. Broadway to UBC is 14.3 km which would be about 27-28 minutes? Skytrain would be 20-21 minutes @ 42.1km/h (Expo Line's operating speed).

MAX LRT only travel on roadway in the downtown. All other time they are travel either off-street or beside a highway which means that they do not need to obey speed limit. An LRT down Broadway will probably have their max speed limited to 50km/h, which means that they will be much much slower than 28 minutes.

And also, you forget the Broadway-Alma-10th intersection. Unless they remove the entire city block or put some sort of grade separation (underground?), the LRT would most likely have to make both turns in 1 go, which means - I can't imagine what the traffic disruption is at that place...

[mr.x]

The only time you can possibly make it from Commercial to UBC in ~25-minutes on the 99 B-Line is at 11pm or later. Several times, i've been on the 99 that late from Commercial to Sasamat...and the bus only had to stop at traffic lights maybe 3 or 4 times. It was nearly continuously green with little pedestrian and car traffic of course. It takes me about 25-minutes to get from Commercial to Sasamat during those times...to continue to UBC would probably take 30-mins, and this is late at night.