[metroXpress]

^ thanks....and I added another phase in.


Phase One : VCC --> Broadway-City Hall
Phase Two : Broadway-City Hall--> Arbutus
Phase Three: Arbutus--> Alma
Phase Four: Alma --> UBC

[mr.x]

^ there's no point in making phase 1 and phase 2 separate, both should be built together - to Arbutus.

[deasine]

Well, for one, I am suggesting placing the elevated line along Chancellor Blvd, not University Blvd.

There are so many houses there - I'm not sure it really fits in the area. At least on University Blvd, there are a few higher buildings and residential towers. In addition, UBC has plans for reconfiguring University Blvd to allow room for more towers, commercial & retail, etc. along University Blvd. I was thinking the SkyTrain guideway could be integrated into the planning of the buildings and have most of the guideway covered up by residences/offices above, like how Van City lingers over and under the SkyTrain guideway at Main Street STN.

[flight_from_kamakura]

oh yeah, $4 billion, for the 22-mile first phase of the new metro system:

source: the beloved infrastructurist.com, pics with the link
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07/28/in-teetering-dubai-new-metro-and-worlds-tallest-building-about-to-debut-photo-tour/

Dubai Metro

Fast facts:


* “In full operation, Dubai Metro is projected to carry approximately 1.2 million passengers on an average day, and 355 million passengers per year”
* “Trains will be WiFi enabled”
* “The 32.5 mile Red Line [which will open in September] will have 29 stations, four of which will be underground”
* “Rolling stock is being supplied by Kinki Sharyo under a $456.2m contract for 385 cars”
* “All stations will have platform doors to increase safety and allow a more comfortable, climate controlled environment”
* “The driverless, fully automated trains are fully air-conditioned”
* “The trains will offer standard ‘Silver’ class, a women and children only section plus a first class ‘Gold’ section for VIPs”
* The “Gold” car will be located at front of each train and will be just for men (specifically, non-poor men). The “Silver” cars for the ladies and the rugrats and the downtrodden will follow behind.
* Gold cars will feature wide leather seats, an explansive view through the train’s front window, and an “exclusive lighting design.”

[metroXpress]

I was thinking the SkyTrain guideway could be integrated into the planning of the buildings and have most of the guideway covered up by residences/offices above, like how Van City lingers over and under the SkyTrain guideway at Main Street STN.


I wonder if that would make a lot of noise for all those properties above the guideway.

[deasine]

I wonder if that would make a lot of noise for all those properties above the guideway.

Vancity is absolutely silent. You wouldn't know a train is passing unless you actually peer down the window.

[metroXpress]

Look at these seats:


So comfortable~

http://www.infrastructurist.com/wp-content/uploads/dubai_gold-car.jpg

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07/28/in-teetering-dubai-new-metro-and-worlds-tallest-building-about-to-debut-photo-tour/

[mr.x]

^ because that's the first class car. The train cars have different classes.

[metroXpress]

Hey, what's the sign on the other door?

[lightrail]

Playing with maps. I don't see University Blvd being the given alignment to UBC. It takes the trains through a long area of nothing - golf course actually. The routing by 16th Avenue is not much longer and serves more of the UBC campus, proving on-campus transit connections. Yes it will cost more to build and the timings will be longer mainly due to the additional stations. Just a thought.

Here's a pic:

http://members.shaw.ca/david.marlor/ubc.jpg

[lightrail]

oh yeah, $4 billion, for the 22-mile first phase of the new metro system:

source: the beloved infrastructurist.com, pics with the link
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07/28/in-teetering-dubai-new-metro-and-worlds-tallest-building-about-to-debut-photo-tour/

Dubai Metro

Fast facts:


* “In full operation, Dubai Metro is projected to carry approximately 1.2 million passengers on an average day, and 355 million passengers per year”
* “Trains will be WiFi enabled”
* “The 32.5 mile Red Line [which will open in September] will have 29 stations, four of which will be underground”
* “Rolling stock is being supplied by Kinki Sharyo under a $456.2m contract for 385 cars”
* “All stations will have platform doors to increase safety and allow a more comfortable, climate controlled environment”
* “The driverless, fully automated trains are fully air-conditioned”
* “The trains will offer standard ‘Silver’ class, a women and children only section plus a first class ‘Gold’ section for VIPs”
* The “Gold” car will be located at front of each train and will be just for men (specifically, non-poor men). The “Silver” cars for the ladies and the rugrats and the downtrodden will follow behind.
* Gold cars will feature wide leather seats, an explansive view through the train’s front window, and an “exclusive lighting design.”

Canada Line would look like this if David Hahn was ruining, sorry, running it. For those who don't know David Hahn is the million dollar man at the helm of BC Ferries, slowly turning our marine highway into luxury cruise ships. :):banana: :notacrook:

[mr.x]

Playing with maps. I don't see University Blvd being the given alignment to UBC. It takes the trains through a long area of nothing - golf course actually. The routing by 16th Avenue is not much longer and serves more of the UBC campus, proving on-campus transit connections. Yes it will cost more to build and the timings will be longer mainly due to the additional stations. Just a thought.

Here's a pic:

http://members.shaw.ca/david.marlor/ubc.jpg

That's just absolutely bizarre...not to mention a massive and costly detour.

The bulk of the ridership will be from the station you named UBC. With that detour, you've effectively increased the travel time to the central UBC by about 5-minutes.

There isn't enough density, thus not enough ridership, to support a station at Westbrook. Thunderbird is also a short walk from UBC Station.

It's a very walkable campus (one of the most walkable areas outside of the downtown core), it'll be a shame if we lost that....I can assure you that walking between buildings and to the bus stop or to their dorms is the only exercise many students get.



Even if you were to make a detour like that, you'd go through University Boulevard then have the first station at UBC. Then Thunderbird, and then Westbrook. But I wouldn't suggest that. One station's good enough for the university.

[Metro-One]

Dubai Metro

Fast facts:


* “In full operation, Dubai Metro is projected to carry approximately 1.2 million passengers on an average day, and 355 million passengers per year”
* “Trains will be WiFi enabled”
* “The 32.5 mile Red Line [which will open in September] will have 29 stations, four of which will be underground”
* “Rolling stock is being supplied by Kinki Sharyo under a $456.2m contract for 385 cars”
* “All stations will have platform doors to increase safety and allow a more comfortable, climate controlled environment”
* “The driverless, fully automated trains are fully air-conditioned”
* “The trains will offer standard ‘Silver’ class, a women and children only section plus a first class ‘Gold’ section for VIPs”
* The “Gold” car will be located at front of each train and will be just for men (specifically, non-poor men). The “Silver” cars for the ladies and the rugrats and the downtrodden will follow behind.
* Gold cars will feature wide leather seats, an explansive view through the train’s front window, and an “exclusive lighting design.”


:previous: I'm sorry, but i will take our watered down train system over this sexist & prejudice (against different creeds) system. they can keep their luxury if such backwards thinking comes with it.

[DKaz]

It's Wesbrook not Westbrook

[fever]

Just considering the idea for a second, there are some reasons for it.

There is a boulevard on 16th between Trafalgar (two east of Macdonald) and UBC, which was presumably set aside for future rail transit. Assuming the grades aren't unreasonable on 16th (they might be), using 16th instead of Broadway or 10th would reduce the length of bored tunnel from 2.2 km (Alma to Blanca) to 0.6 km (10th to 16th, somewhere between Arbutus and Blenheim) or to 0 by using the Arbutus ROW and cut-and-covering under 16th from Arbutus to Trafalgar. Because no changes can be expected to zoning in West Point Grey, there would be no change in development potential around stations at Macdonald and Alma/Dunbar. This route might not get as much ridership, but either way it will be static.

The other interesting possibility is that if the hill is a little less steep on 16th than on 10th, this route could be a good alternative using LRT from Arbutus/Broadway (or as an extension of the downtown streetcar from Main Street, or wherever). The line could use the Arbutus ROW between 10th and 16th, be cut-and-covered to Trafalgar on 16th, then use the median of 16th at-grade to UBC. I'd assume that relocating utilities on this route would be significantly less costly than on 10th/Broadway. And the number of grade crossings could be cut in half by blocking half the streets.

[deasine]

^No... there is a steep hill from Crown to Blenheim. Just redirecting the line to "avoid a hill" when it would be underground would make up for that cost. After Blanca on both streets, there is virtually no elevation change.

Also note that Sasamat is the centre of the commercial activity on West Point Grey and has the potential to grow with developments. The only commercial centre the 16th Avenue corridor passes by is that two block strip at Dunbar.

[fever]

There is a hill there, of course, but it may be a little less steep than on 10th. VanMap doesn't like my OS so I can't check right now. LRT is typically capable of somewhere between 6% and 8% grades, so 10th is a little extreme. This might not be as bad.

Because the ROW already exists, because the cost of relocating utilities would be minimal, and because there could be few grade crossings, the cost of building LRT on 16th could fall closer to the $10m/km price than the $60m/km price for in-street LRT. The longer route (about 1 km in total) could be made up for in operating speed with fewer grade crossings over a 10th or Broadway alignment.

The Sasamat/10th retail strip is not much larger than the Dunbar/16th, and little change can be expected at either.

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ good logic. i just wonder about an underground transit hub in this configuration, would seem that it'd been to be closer to wesbrook in order to keep the costs lower.

[mr.x]

I'm quite sure there will be a lot more NIMBY's for that corridor.


It has to be built along 10th Avenue, 16th just doesn't make any sense for ridership purposes. It's almost identical to the Cambie vs. Arbutus debate for the Canada Line.

[fever]

I'm quite sure there will be a lot more NIMBY's for that corridor.


It has to be built along 10th Avenue, 16th just doesn't make any sense for ridership purposes. It's almost identical to the Cambie vs. Arbutus debate for the Canada Line.

You're right about NIMBYs. They'll be out for both routes.

Unlike the Cambie/Arbutus debate, this time both routes suck for ridership. There is no major destination on either route other than UBC itself. There is no reason to expect future ridership growth on either route except to/from UBC.

[mr.x]

^ there's bound to be a lot of ridership at Sasamat. I believe that stop receives more bus ridership than even some SkyTrain stations. There's certainly development potential, but it'll take time. The massive Safeway site with its ridiculously large parking lot is just screaming to be redeveloped. It's unfortunate that Sasamat Gardens wasn't denser.

The NIMBY's will be more out for the 16th Avenue option as it's a greenway. Of all locations, I don't think anyone ever expected to see a rapid transit rail line down 16th Avenue. Myself included - I live near 16th and Discovery.

[fever]

There is one safeway parking lot. C-2 zoning. That's all. The only reason Sasamat has high ridership is because students with UPasses park there to avoid the cost of parking at UBC.

I think Skytrain to Arbutus makes sense. But I think it will come down to either LRT or B-Line west of Arbutus. There's just not much that's going to generate ridership for the next 7 km. The only way rail is going to beat the B-line is if it's relatively cheap.

It's kind of like the argument for building an Expo/Canada line extension to North Van. There's a lot of ridership potential, but it'll be expensive and it can't be phased.

[mr.x]

^ I agree. I'd certainly compromise at building SkyTrain, and SkyTrain only, up to Arbutus. That could cut back maybe at least $1-billion to the $2.8-billion figure....money well saved in a transit cash strapped region, or we could use that money for other transit initiatives.

The remaining route to UBC can be streetcar, as an extension of the Arbutus streetcar via Broadway and then later 10th Avenue as you suggested before, or maybe a drastically improved 99 B-Line. And this way, the commercial district along Broadway and West Point Grey Village atop 10th Avenue will still be served by rapid transit.

[deasine]

The Sasamat/10th retail strip is not much larger than the Dunbar/16th, and little change can be expected at either.

Size wise yes, but there is a lot more people at Sasamat vs Dubar.

[flight_from_kamakura]

branching the arbutus line to go down 10th might be a pretty good idea, a little hub there for the west side could work well. otherwise, does it make sense too much to build using skytrain technology much past granville/school board? i still like my idea of skytrain from glen/clark to city hall, then a separate lrt to ubc from there.

edited a bit...

[cornholio]

People forget that there is a small peace of land used by the 39 Canadian Brigade, something that can be redeveloped with some pressure on the Feds. Not only can any skytrain line be run through the parcel but a station could be built on its western edge to spur the redevelopment which could add 20,000+ people to the area save on construction costs and avoid building a station at Sasamat where there is limited redevelopment opportunities(the Sasamat area can be served by the other station a few blocks east).

No one ever talks about the land even though we as taxpayers would benefit hugely if it were redeveloped with a new line being built and the baracks moved(the federal government can get some nice money for the sale to either a private developer or Translink or the province for cheaper and some vote buying). The are much more practicle areas to move the baracks to.

[Canadian Mind]

People forget that there is a small peace of land used by the 39 Canadian Brigade, something that can be redeveloped with some pressure on the Feds. Not only can any skytrain line be run through the parcel but a station could be built on its western edge to spur the redevelopment which could add 20,000+ people to the area save on construction costs and avoid building a station at Sasamat where there is limited redevelopment opportunities(the Sasamat area can be served by the other station a few blocks east).

No one ever talks about the land even though we as taxpayers would benefit hugely if it were redeveloped with a new line being built and the baracks moved(the federal government can get some nice money for the sale to either a private developer or Translink or the province for cheaper and some vote buying). The are much more practicle areas to move the baracks to.

There are more practical areas, but you know that as soon as 39 brigade tries to develop an alternative portion of land out in the ALR, all the enviro-weenies are going to shit themselves.

[cornholio]

There are more practical areas, but you know that as soon as 39 brigade tries to develop an alternative portion of land out in the ALR, all the enviro-weenies are going to shit themselves.

your probably right but it still makes absolute sense, especially when we are talking about a rapid transit line going practically threw it. in the end i dont see it being very difficult to move the facility, and it doesnt even need to be ALR land as it could be industrial zoned land. You can even keep it in the city of Vancouver and compress it in size increase its density.

And just think about the development opportunities, right next to a rapid transit line, a hop away from UBC and a hop away from Downtown/Broadway area. It already has a established retail area by Sasamat to give the area some established character, and more importantly the abundant park space and beaches within a short walk....and well its Point Grey, people seem to think its a desirable neighborhood. There is also already a highschool and elementary school virtually next to the parcel. It just makes too much sense.

[Canadian Mind]

your probably right but it still makes absolute sense, especially when we are talking about a rapid transit line going practically threw it. in the end i dont see it being very difficult to move the facility, and it doesnt even need to be ALR land as it could be industrial zoned land. You can even keep it in the city of Vancouver and compress it in size increase its density.

And just think about the development opportunities, right next to a rapid transit line, a hop away from UBC and a hop away from Downtown/Broadway area. It already has a established retail area by Sasamat to give the area some established character, and more importantly the abundant park space and beaches within a short walk....and well its Point Grey, people seem to think its a desirable neighborhood. There is also already a highschool and elementary school virtually next to the parcel. It just makes too much sense.

You can't really densify army structures and properties, they are designed to be small, compact, and efficient as is. If you want the property moved there is nothing the COV can do about it, and you'd have to petition your local MPs to move the brigade out to somewhere more open and expansive... Say Chillowack.

But then you lose the ability for the army to immediately you in the more populated areas when a natural disaster strikes. Really it's what you value in the end though, population or protection. Keep in mind the next nearest reserve regiment is in Kelowna and the nearest reg force regiment is Edmonton.

[allan_kuan]

I guess people are talking about the small army base on 4th Avenue?

As much as that can be relocated elsewhere if the government wants to have it stay put they could consider rebuilding the base to make it more compact such that other parts of the land can be used. That of course may demand a few million dollars but if the federal government can make a profit by selling the land or asking residents to pay for the rebuild.

EDIT:
You say that the buildings were designed to be efficient... but most of them were built years ago weren't they? I am not aware of any renovations that may have taken place since then.

- Allan Kuan

[cornholio]

Well yeah the problem is that the Federal government doesnt even have complete control over the baracks operations since the military is heavily compartmentalized and isnt directly controlled by elected officials nor does anyone really pay close attention to efficiencies(no matter what anyone likes to think). There is no elected official that can go, hey lets scrap the baracks and move them, they can merely suggest it. This means theres very little interest in relocating the baracks and redeveloping the land to infuse some cash back in to the goverment coffers that pay for their operations.

But it still wouldent hurt, the only problem is that most MP's would probably want to stay clear of the issue as the only thing they would be accomplishing is pissing of some Point Grey residents who like their "village".

Still it makes sense and someone should try to make a push for it.

There is no reason for the baracks to be in that location and taking up so much space with just a handful of buildings.

[raggedy13]

The only reason Sasamat has high ridership is because students with UPasses park there to avoid the cost of parking at UBC.

I've never heard that before but there may be some truth to that. Regardless, Sasamat is also busy because it has the only full size grocery store in the area. Thousands of students living on campus go there for groceries (among other services), thousands of residents of the University Endowment Lands go there for groceries (among other services), and many students rent in the Sasamat area and commute into campus. I know much of the residential in the area is single-detached housing (though 10th has been densifying with a number of new 4-storey apartments along the retail strip in the last few years), but many of those houses are subdivided into rental suites. The population and student density is reasonably high in the area, enough to support a skytrain station, especially compared to some of the other stations in the current system.

[SpongeG]

theres a few towers in the Sasamat area too - there is a good shopping district there

[allan_kuan]

actually the barracks are fine in terms of location... it's just how the space is being used... there's so many grass lawns on property and again only a handful of buildings. The forces should build higher-density buildings on the northwest side of the current lot including new low-rise apartments for soldiers and families. They can also build new tracks and soccer fields for the army and public to jointly use (depending on requirements) on the southwestern half. The whole eastern half can then turn into a new showcase of eco-density with high-rise buildings and offices.

- Allan Kuan

[Canadian Mind]

Ugg, by efficiency I'm talking about user efficiency, not how green a building may be. Most army buildings are from the cold war.

There are also reasons for all the green space. The two big ones being future expansion if required, and you are puting space between targets for enemy attacks (less collateral damage). It's not all about looking pretty.

[trofirhen]

Nearly all the readers here have ideas of where the new Skytrain Line (or Lines) should or shouldn't go, whether they should be elevated, at grade, or underground, and which stations need to be built, and which do not.

I propose a challenge to any and all interested parties: Design and post a map -with explanations - of where new Skytrain lines are needed - not only to UBC, but to other points as well, if you wish, then compare them with the other entries. Use pictures and diagrams as you will.

This will provide enormous fodder for ideas and discussion, and be a real exercise in creativity. Imagine that YOU are the planner, and YOU have the mandate to design and create extensions to the Skytrain system.

If you can, use coloured graphics, to give a visual idea. If not, describe it verbally.

I think that comparing different concepts will be not only interesting, but may even have an outcome in tangible terms of what is built and what isn't.

If this sounds like a school assignment, it isn't meant to. It's meant to be YOUR opportunity to give YOUR input, and share / compare with others.
The UBC extension is still only at the discussion level. No tracks have been laid yet. And furthermore, there are other Skytrain and commuter rail lines to consider.

Now is YOUR chance to influence the final result.

Any takers? :rolleyes:

[deasine]

Nearly all the readers here have ideas of where the new Skytrain Line (or Lines) should or shouldn't go, whether they should be elevated, at grade, or underground, and which stations need to be built, and which do not.

I propose a challenge to any and all interested parties: Design and post a map -with explanations - of where new Skytrain lines are needed - not only to UBC, but to other points as well, if you wish, then compare them with the other entries. Use pictures and diagrams as you will.

This will provide enormous fodder for ideas and discussion, and be a real exercise in creativity. Imagine that YOU are the planner, and YOU have the mandate to design and create extensions to the Skytrain system.

If you can, use coloured graphics, to give a visual idea. If not, describe it verbally.

I think that comparing different concepts will be not only interesting, but may even have an outcome in tangible terms of what is built and what isn't.

If this sounds like a school assignment, it isn't meant to. It's meant to be YOUR opportunity to give YOUR input, and share / compare with others.
The UBC extension is still only at the discussion level. No tracks have been laid yet. And furthermore, there are other Skytrain and commuter rail lines to consider.

Now is YOUR chance to influence the final result.

Any takers? :rolleyes:

There is something like that already. Lightrail, myself, and many other forumers post fantasy maps every few months. See "Transit Fantasies" thread topic under Transportation.

Please, do not post in all bold.

[metroXpress]

Nearly all the readers here have ideas of where the new Skytrain Line (or Lines) should or shouldn't go, whether they should be elevated, at grade, or underground, and which stations need to be built, and which do not.

I propose a challenge to any and all interested parties: Design and post a map -with explanations - of where new Skytrain lines are needed - not only to UBC, but to other points as well, if you wish, then compare them with the other entries. Use pictures and diagrams as you will.

This will provide enormous fodder for ideas and discussion, and be a real exercise in creativity. Imagine that YOU are the planner, and YOU have the mandate to design and create extensions to the Skytrain system.

If you can, use coloured graphics, to give a visual idea. If not, describe it verbally.

I think that comparing different concepts will be not only interesting, but may even have an outcome in tangible terms of what is built and what isn't.

If this sounds like a school assignment, it isn't meant to. It's meant to be YOUR opportunity to give YOUR input, and share / compare with others.
The UBC extension is still only at the discussion level. No tracks have been laid yet. And furthermore, there are other Skytrain and commuter rail lines to consider.

Now is YOUR chance to influence the final result.

Any takers? :rolleyes:


Nothing else I can say...so I grab the link for you

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=146531

[twoNeurons]

We need to bring back our Monorail! :D

[mooks28]

actually the barracks are fine in terms of location... it's just how the space is being used... there's so many grass lawns on property and again only a handful of buildings. The forces should build higher-density buildings on the northwest side of the current lot including new low-rise apartments for soldiers and families. They can also build new tracks and soccer fields for the army and public to jointly use (depending on requirements) on the southwestern half. The whole eastern half can then turn into a new showcase of eco-density with high-rise buildings and offices.

- Allan Kuan

The military keeps land like this in reserve for a very good reason -- they might need it one day, even if it's 50 or 100 years from now. Leave the base just where it is.

[BCPhil]

We need to bring back our Monorail! :D

And bring back Skyrides across False Creek.

[trofirhen]

And bring back Skyrides across False Creek. :jester:

Quite ! ! :frog:

A monoral and skyrides? Echoes of the Grade "B" World's Fair called Expo 86 that we once had. :slob:

Wouldn't that be the ultimate in efficient urban transport, right up there with Frankfurt, Paris and Tokyo! (not to mention cute, too) :rolleyes:

Maybe even with the theme song piped in
" . . . § somethin's happenin' here ......§§" :notacrook:

Hey, tourists might come from all over just to gawk in wonder ........ :banana:

[Kwik-E-Mart]

And bring back Skyrides across False Creek.

"Beam me up Scotty!"

[Xerx]

hey zweisystem has posted a reply to the ubc skytrain blog post, guess he reads the blog daily.
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/the-skytrain-lobby-pixie-dust-planning/

[mr.x]

^ i'll agree with one thing, and one thing only: there's no doubt that the Canada Line is an abysmal disaster. We'll regret it down the road.

[flight_from_kamakura]

^ almost makes you wish the ndp had been running the show, no? a cadillac system like the m-line, ooh...ahh! (troll-ness noted).

[Metro-One]

I really hate what this guy is doing, he is really trying his hardest to drive a wedge between the skytrain supporters and those who want to see LRT or heavy commuter rail (which I would prefer, and think would be a better investment) to the Valley.

Shame on him. The last thing we need are two watered down groups fighting against each other for rapid transit.

Also when will he learn the backbone concept? Honestly, this guy is hilarious. And again, I love his cherry picking (really, he should be working in the Okanagan he is so good at it).

[deasine]

^ i'll agree with one thing, and one thing only: there's no doubt that the Canada Line is an abysmal disaster. We'll regret it down the road.

Disagreed. But even if you agree with that point, the way you two agree is different.

[mr.x]

Disagreed. But even if you agree with that point, the way you two agree is different.

He's quite right about this, which is also what I've been saying here in this forum for quite some time:

Actually the capacity of a Canada Line car is 163 passengers, using the industry standard of all seat occupied and standees @ 4 persons per m/2; the figure of 200 per car is derived at crush loading, all seats occupied and standees @ 6 persons m/2.

Translink uses the industry standard/normal capacity as well. What's worse is what if the 15,000 pphpd system is derived from crush load train capacities and not standard/normal capacity? I don't recall RAVCO specifying what type of train capacity the 15,000 pphpd would be based on. That would put the ultimate maximum normal capacity of the Canada Line well below 15,000 pphpd....more like 12,000 pphpd.



How much of this is true?

Yet when the 98-B Line bus was instituted in Richmond, ridership dropped from what the old 403, 402, and 401 bus routes with direct services to Vancouver, carried. Again the SkyTrain lobby ignores the singular fact that forced transfers deters ridership.

[BCPhil]

He's nothing more than what I call a PIMBY (Please In My Back Yard).

The only reason he dumps on Skytrain to UBC is because he wants LRT in the Valley. He thinks there is not enough money to build Skytrain and light rail, so he dumps on Skytrain to make sure the projects he wants built, get built in his back yard, and he doesn't care about what happens to people else where. Hence PIMBY.

And to accommodate his desire his arguments are so scatter-shot that they actually make the point that there should not be any transit anywhere ever, as driving, through the core of Vancouver, where traffic and parking are nightmares, is better than taking transit. If that is the case, how can LRT in the valley be any better than driving in the valley?

Then he craps on ridership estimates for Canada Line. He says it's about 3 times the number of current riders on the route. And he says that increase is impossible to achieve. If he believes that, then he shouldn't want LRT in the Valley, as LRT in the valley ONLY makes sense if it will more than double ridership there. Current ridership levels do not warrant spending that much money for LRT. So I would think he should believe in the draw of rail over buses, and not diss it.

Then he takes shots at making transfers to the Canada Line, well what would LRT

And picking on Skytrain because no one else buys it is a childish argument (and his central argument).

Here, I'll beat it with one sentence. Not every automobile in the world is a Honda Civic. Why bail out GM or Chrysler, everyone should just drive a Honda Civic. And why would anyone buy a Hybrid, almost no one has one (compared to normal cars).

Bombardier ART has to compete in a very small market with a lot of competition. On top of it, ART is new compared to "established systems". In the last 20 years 7 installations out of probably no more than a 20 new metros around the world is actually pretty good. Most authorities use the same technology across their system, the most of which have been established since before ART was a tinkle in the eye of ICTS. So even getting their foot in the door that much is pretty good. And many systems have union contracts with a train driver union that they can't get out of, which is why there are still so many manual systems around, which defeats the advantages of the automation of ART.

And it doesn't matter how well it's sold elsewhere. The simple fact of the mater is that Skytrain is hugely successful in Vancouver. Why should we in Vancouver care in anyway if a small city in Hawaii buys ART or how well it works as an airport shuttle. How does that impact the effectiveness in Vancouver at all? Fact of the matter is that this "unsuccessful" ART system is one of the top ten ridden systems in North America, beating a lot of other more conventional metros, and (almost all) LRT Systems.

The Expo line has blown all the original expectations out of the water. And the UBC Extension would net well over 100,000 riders on opening day, and increase ridership on the rest of the system (especially the Millennium line).

And lastly, for metro-like subway systems, Skytrain would be the cheapest to build for the UBC corridor. We already have existing infrastructure and rail cars, and any rail cars purchased could be used on the entire system.

If we went with a more conventional system, it could easily cost us twice as much. We would need a lot of real estate in the heart of the city for an OMC. Most conventional systems are larger, meaning we would need to dig much larger, more expensive tunnels. Because headway would be worse, to accommodate the load we would need longer trains, which would mean we would need longer, more expensive stations. Just look how much a simple extension of the Toronto Subway is going to cost, mostly because of the size of the tunnels and stations.

In a previous post of his he comments on the Kassel Tram Trains, in Germany. That system is very comparable to what a system between Surrey and Abbostford could be like, with a similar cost. But it is NOTHING like the Broadway Corridor. The Kessel Tram uses existing freight train ROWs. There is no empty ROW through the heart of Vancouver. Significant traffic and road modifications would be needed. Broadway LRT would still be very expensive, and it's speed would be restricted by road traffic, so it wouldn't offer any speed advantages over other modes.

And P.S. you would still need to transfer between Canada Line or Expo Line to Broadway LRT, so I don't see how that is a valid argument against Broadway Skytrain, but valid for LRT.

I'm all for LRT in the Valley instead of Skytrain. But Broadway isn't the valley, it's not suburban sprawl. Its a fairly dense urban city with lots of traffic and cross roads. Something that warrants a subway.

[nname]

How much of this is true?

It is true, but not because of the 98. It was mainly because of the 4 months transit strike before the implementation of 98, and a deep service cut 1 month after. Specifically in Richmond, there was a service cut for 401, 403, 404, and 410. Probably every single routes loose ridership during that time.

I love how he mentioned running Calgary's LRV every 90 seconds. If that is doable, Calgary wouldn't spend $$$ now to upgrade all platform to fit 4-cars trains. Each single platform station in the Downtown area cost $12~14 millions btw.

And speaking of Calgary, I forget if he quoted the system development cost of $543 millions from the CT statistics site here. I saw he using this argument in a lot of places and conclude that LRT is much much cheaper than skytrain. I was searching it for a while, and finally found this document (http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/tmp/lrt/calgary_en.pdf) from a CT presentation indicating that the cost of $543 millions is for the initial segment of 29km (not including any extension), and measured in 1981-1987 dollars. The total cost of the 44km system that's running right now is about 2 billions. I think once the current extensions are done, the system will be around 57km and well over 3 billions.

[Metro-One]

He's nothing more than what I call a PIMBY (Please In My Back Yard).

The only reason he dumps on Skytrain to UBC is because he wants LRT in the Valley. He thinks there is not enough money to build Skytrain and light rail, so he dumps on Skytrain to make sure the projects he wants built, get built in his back yard, and he doesn't care about what happens to people else where. Hence PIMBY.

And to accommodate his desire his arguments are so scatter-shot that they actually make the point that there should not be any transit anywhere ever, as driving, through the core of Vancouver, where traffic and parking are nightmares, is better than taking transit. If that is the case, how can LRT in the valley be any better than driving in the valley?

Then he craps on ridership estimates for Canada Line. He says it's about 3 times the number of current riders on the route. And he says that increase is impossible to achieve. If he believes that, then he shouldn't want LRT in the Valley, as LRT in the valley ONLY makes sense if it will more than double ridership there. Current ridership levels do not warrant spending that much money for LRT. So I would think he should believe in the draw of rail over buses, and not diss it.

Then he takes shots at making transfers to the Canada Line, well what would LRT

And picking on Skytrain because no one else buys it is a childish argument (and his central argument).

Here, I'll beat it with one sentence. Not every automobile in the world is a Honda Civic. Why bail out GM or Chrysler, everyone should just drive a Honda Civic. And why would anyone buy a Hybrid, almost no one has one (compared to normal cars).

Bombardier ART has to compete in a very small market with a lot of competition. On top of it, ART is new compared to "established systems". In the last 20 years 7 installations out of probably no more than a 20 new metros around the world is actually pretty good. Most authorities use the same technology across their system, the most of which have been established since before ART was a tinkle in the eye of ICTS. So even getting their foot in the door that much is pretty good. And many systems have union contracts with a train driver union that they can't get out of, which is why there are still so many manual systems around, which defeats the advantages of the automation of ART.

And it doesn't matter how well it's sold elsewhere. The simple fact of the mater is that Skytrain is hugely successful in Vancouver. Why should we in Vancouver care in anyway if a small city in Hawaii buys ART or how well it works as an airport shuttle. How does that impact the effectiveness in Vancouver at all? Fact of the matter is that this "unsuccessful" ART system is one of the top ten ridden systems in North America, beating a lot of other more conventional metros, and (almost all) LRT Systems.

The Expo line has blown all the original expectations out of the water. And the UBC Extension would net well over 100,000 riders on opening day, and increase ridership on the rest of the system (especially the Millennium line).

And lastly, for metro-like subway systems, Skytrain would be the cheapest to build for the UBC corridor. We already have existing infrastructure and rail cars, and any rail cars purchased could be used on the entire system.

If we went with a more conventional system, it could easily cost us twice as much. We would need a lot of real estate in the heart of the city for an OMC. Most conventional systems are larger, meaning we would need to dig much larger, more expensive tunnels. Because headway would be worse, to accommodate the load we would need longer trains, which would mean we would need longer, more expensive stations. Just look how much a simple extension of the Toronto Subway is going to cost, mostly because of the size of the tunnels and stations.

In a previous post of his he comments on the Kassel Tram Trains, in Germany. That system is very comparable to what a system between Surrey and Abbostford could be like, with a similar cost. But it is NOTHING like the Broadway Corridor. The Kessel Tram uses existing freight train ROWs. There is no empty ROW through the heart of Vancouver. Significant traffic and road modifications would be needed. Broadway LRT would still be very expensive, and it's speed would be restricted by road traffic, so it wouldn't offer any speed advantages over other modes.

And P.S. you would still need to transfer between Canada Line or Expo Line to Broadway LRT, so I don't see how that is a valid argument against Broadway Skytrain, but valid for LRT.

I'm all for LRT in the Valley instead of Skytrain. But Broadway isn't the valley, it's not suburban sprawl. Its a fairly dense urban city with lots of traffic and cross roads. Something that warrants a subway.
:previous: :cheers: :tup: :worship:

I could not have put it better myself. The funny thing is myself, along with numerous other forumers here have stated all those exact points again and again.

The problem is this guy will never understand the concept of a proper mass transit system, and he will accuse your above post as "twisting the facts" :jester:


Bombardier ART has to compete in a very small market with a lot of competition. On top of it, ART is new compared to "established systems". In the last 20 years 7 installations out of probably no more than a 20 new metros around the world is actually pretty good. Most authorities use the same technology across their system, the most of which have been established since before ART was a tinkle in the eye of ICTS. So even getting their foot in the door that much is pretty good. And many systems have union contracts with a train driver union that they can't get out of, which is why there are still so many manual systems around, which defeats the advantages of the automation of ART.
:previous: This is what I have been trying to say for a very long time.

Also to Mr. X, do not say you agree with him about the C-line, because the two of you have two very different alternatives. He would probably like to see an at grade LRT/Tram down the middle of the road in traffic, while you would like to have seen it remain automated and grade separated but just with larger platforms/longer trains.

Also, I think calling the C-Line an "abysmal disaster" is the wrong words of choice. To mean "Abysmal Disaster" would be a rail line that is built with the potential of 20 000 pphpd but only ever achieves less than 5 000 pphpd. In the case of the C-line, which will receive the opposite problem (to many people) I would call it "short sighted."

[Metro-One]

I also was just reading about the building of a new Tram Line in Toronto (or Montreal) that is estimated to cost between 500 million and 700 million and it was only around 12km long! For an at grade Tram!

I have always laughed at his estimates

[deasine]

Translink uses the industry standard/normal capacity as well. What's worse is what if the 15,000 pphpd system is derived from crush load train capacities and not standard/normal capacity? I don't recall RAVCO specifying what type of train capacity the 15,000 pphpd would be based on. That would put the ultimate maximum normal capacity of the Canada Line well below 15,000 pphpd....more like 12,000 pphpd.

Even if it's only 12000, that's not the point. His point and his negativity is because it's not LRT. End of dicsussion.

How much of this is true?
He's comparing a transfer onto another bus vs transferring onto rapid transit. I would be pissed off if I have to transfer onto another bus that is not faster than my bus before. Duh.

It's also ironic, as BCPhil mentioned, that he's lecturing about transferring. Stupidity.

[mr.x]

:previous: :cheers: :tup: :worship:

I could not have put it better myself. The funny thing is myself, along with numerous other forumers here have stated all those exact points again and again.

The problem is this guy will never understand the concept of a proper mass transit system, and he will accuse your above post as "twisting the facts" :jester:


:previous: This is what I have been trying to say for a very long time.

He sure does a good job at sensationalizing things...such as with the Nazi comparison and now with pixy dust? He should phone up Fox News for a job.



Also to Mr. X, do not say you agree with him about the C-line, because the two of you have two very different alternatives. He would probably like to see an at grade LRT/Tram down the middle of the road in traffic, while you would like to have seen it remain automated and grade separated but just with larger platforms/longer trains.

Also, I think calling the C-Line an "abysmal disaster" is the wrong words of choice. To mean "Abysmal Disaster" would be a rail line that is built with the potential of 20 000 pphpd but only ever achieves less than 5 000 pphpd. In the case of the C-line, which will receive the opposite problem (to many people) I would call it "short sighted."

I have always supported a fully-grade separated automated system. That's perhaps the most important feature of the line. I am absolutely opposed to an LRT system at-grade....you definitely did miss the forum's huge debates and arguments between LRT vs. SkyTrain for the Canada Line 6 years ago. Unfortunately, most of us had assumed it would be a mere extension of SkyTrain infrastructure to the same Millennium Line standard rather than a completely new "SkyTrain-like" system with short platforms.

I recall being the first to post a rendering of the ridiculously short Bridgeport Station, from the first stage of open houses.


Some other things I would have like to have seen:

- more track switches in case something goes wrong, entire sections of the line won't have to be shut down
- train storage tracks along the line
- a deeper station platform for Waterfront to allow a future extension to the North Shore



It's not necessarily platform lengths, but longer platform lengths do enable for more people to queue for trains on the platform. We've seen what Commercial Station is like during rush hour or even when a train breaks down....and now we have its Canada Line equivalent, Bridgeport Station, as being much smaller.

Most importantly, capacity. I do think they (RAVCO) have seriously underestimated the capacity needed for the line, and have made several mistakes with regards to not specifying more to the design in the contract. We don't need longer platforms today, but the option for significantly higher capacities should have been made available rather than just a mere 10-metre platform extension for a 15,000 pphpd.

And again, is it really 15,000 pphpd if it's based on crush load trains?


In hindsight, the whole project was a victim of the Olympics; a simpler and smaller design enabled them to rush it in time for 2010. The public sector, both the general public and governments, wanting to build the project for the lowest $ as possible didn't help either.

[nname]

And again, is it really 15,000 pphpd if it's based on crush load trains?
According to zweisystem, even 2-cars train can provide close to 15,000 capacity when its running at 90 seconds headway ;)

a deeper station platform for Waterfront to allow a future extension to the North Shore
I'm sure they will not able to bore a tunnel (even if they can, the depth of the inlet at 80m will probably result in a very steep tunnel). However, if they do cut and cover and using pre-cast tunnel segments for the underwater section, I don't think there's anything that prevent this, other than some disruptions during construction.

[fever]

The problem is that the Canada line platform at Waterfront isn't deep enough for an extension to easily get under the Expo line platform.

[deasine]

The problem is that the Canada line platform at Waterfront isn't deep enough for an extension to easily get under the Expo line platform.

You'd had to go way deep for that and it's necessarily a good idea to allow an extension to the North Shore. The Canada Line at Waterfront will have crowding issues on the platform. Can you imagine how worse it gets when you add the amount of commuters to the north shore?

[mr.x]

^ which brings us back to square one of building a higher capacity line. ;)

[officedweller]

I remember early 1990s articles indicating that a rapid transit line (SkyTrain) to the North Shore would probably be closer to Second Narrows than downtown (that was also the article that mentioned a Boundary Road SkyTrain line being studied).

[trofirhen]

One way of getting the Canada Line to the North Shore (at Lonsdale Quay, presumably) would be to turn it at a right angle on the Vancouver waterfront next to the train tracks and let it descend there - parallel to the waterfront -for depth, then turn northward again to cross Burrard inlet at a deep level, then perhaps do the same angular turn along the waterfront in North Van, to come up to grade. Kooky? Just an idea.
:yes: :shrug: :koko:

[cornholio]

One way of getting the Canada Line to the North Shore (at Lonsdale Quay, presumably) would be to turn it at a right angle on the Vancouver waterfront next to the train tracks and let it descend there - parallel to the waterfront -for depth, then turn northward again to cross Burrard inlet at a deep level, then perhaps do the same angular turn along the waterfront in North Van, to come up to grade. Kooky? Just an idea.
:yes: :shrug: :koko:

I think what people were saying is that it cant clear the Expo line tracks because its at the same level and too close.

In any case though the Expo line can do what you said and go to the North shore. Also there have always been talks of building a third crossing(or a Lions Gate bridge replacement) at Main street through a tunnel, if this would be done then it would be perfectly placed for a Expo line crossing.

[amor de cosmos]

One way of getting the Canada Line to the North Shore (at Lonsdale Quay, presumably) would be to turn it at a right angle on the Vancouver waterfront next to the train tracks and let it descend there - parallel to the waterfront -for depth, then turn northward again to cross Burrard inlet at a deep level, then perhaps do the same angular turn along the waterfront in North Van, to come up to grade. Kooky? Just an idea.
:yes: :shrug: :koko:

it should just go straight across. let cars take the long way, across the lion's gate or 2nd narrows. that sounds like a ridiculously long tunnel though

[fever]

Burrard Inlet isn't very deep. It varies between 25 and 50 m between the bridges. Indian Arm is much deeper.

You can get an idea of how deep a body of water is by looking at the slope of land leading into it. So without any data (bathymetry maps), the slope just off downtown is probably not a huge problem for tunneling - the conditions are probably similar to the Canada line under False Creek.

The inlet is probably at the deep end of the 50-m range just off Lower Lonsdale, which would necessitate a bored tunnel extending up Lonsdale with deep stations. This would be expensive. Alternatively, the line could be routed further west through Harbourside (Fullerton fill), former mudflats at the base of Mosquito creek, then go cut-and-cover up Keith road to Central Lonsdale. The stations could also be cut-and-covered and the Cap mall area is mostly underdeveloped commercial and light industrial (and will probably remain that way).

Depths through the length of the inlet:
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/SCI/osap/projects/bcinlets/indian_arm_e.htm

[metroXpress]

it should just go straight across. let cars take the long way, across the lion's gate or 2nd narrows. that sounds like a ridiculously long tunnel though

let cars go through a tunnel under lion's gate and let cyclists/pedestrians and Canada Line use the bridge deck.

[nname]

let cars go through a tunnel under lion's gate and let cyclists/pedestrians and Canada Line use the bridge deck.

No, let Expo or Millennium or a new LIM line to use the bridge deck, so they won't climb the west van side at 20km/h :D

[allan_kuan]

Although the depth of the inlet might be shallow... also remember that we have to bury this tunnel in somewhat hard bedrock that may be still some several metres below the actual sea floor.

The Seabus may not look like a very fast option across the water but it gets the job done. I wish that instead of spending maybe a billion on getting just one or two tunnels across the inlet we could use it to build a huge fleet of fast seabuses and terminals to permit frequent fast service at a cheaper price.

[Xerx]

Translink has released FAQ and Planning and consulting principles.http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Get%20Involved/Public%20Consultation/UBC%20Rapid%20Transit%20Line/UBC%20Line%20FAQs.ashx
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Get%20Involved/Public%20Consultation/UBC%20Rapid%20Transit%20Line/UBC%20Line%20Consult%20Principles.ashx
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Get%20Involved/Public%20Consultation/UBC%20Rapid%20Transit%20Line/UBC%20Line%20Planning%20Principles.ashx

[YYCguys]

If Skytrain to UBC involves a connection to RapidBus at some point between Main and Arbutus, then what would the total estimated travel time be from say Waterfront Station to UBC, for all 6 options (ie: transfer at Main, transfer at Arbutus, transfer at ...)? Travel time is something I didn't see as a consideration in the 1999 initial study.

[metroXpress]

No, let Expo or Millennium or a new LIM line to use the bridge deck, so they won't climb the west van side at 20km/h :D

nice:)

[trofirhen]

Although the depth of the inlet might be shallow... also remember that we have to bury this tunnel in somewhat hard bedrock that may be still some several metres below the actual sea floor.

The Seabus may not look like a very fast option across the water but it gets the job done. I wish that instead of spending maybe a billion on getting just one or two tunnels across the inlet we could use it to build a huge fleet of fast seabuses and terminals to permit frequent fast service at a cheaper price.

Not a "prestige" or "glamour" option, but a very practical one, and probably the best - and most feasible - idea in the long haul. This would be especially good if they could speed up the ferries by using hydrofoils, and having three or more terminals on the North Shore: The existing one at Lonsdale Quay, one further east under the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge area, and one in West Vancouver, probably at Ambleside.

[mr.x]

The SeaBus ferries are capable of much higher speeds, but they don't run at that speed because of wakes and the rough ride it'll create....plus additional maintenance.

[windscar]

Does anyone have the performance specs (speed:max & cruising; fuel capacity, ext.) for both the old and new seabuses? I have found out everything about thing, but can't their performance specs.

[trofirhen]

The SeaBus ferries are capable of much higher speeds, but they don't run at that speed because of wakes and the rough ride it'll create....plus additional maintenance.

What about using hydrofoils? The travel along the water on raised "pods," making far less wake and turbulence that a conventional hull-designed craft, and are specificaly designed for high speeds. And because the surface area touching the water is minimized, they don't pitch and roll, making people seasick. Burrard inlet isn't particularly rough, anyway, except under freak wind conditions. The only place where this would become an issue would be going under through the First Narrows, where there are powerful tidal currents, and where on windy days the waves push in at the harbour entrance.

Just a suggestion and an idea. Might save a billion dollars or more.

[jlousa]

Lastest from Translink, nothing new really, seems like both UBC and UEL are onbroad which bodes well finacially for Translink. Also interesting that there is no mention of lack of funds like with most recent releases from Translink.

UBC Line Planning Principles
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Get%20Involved/Public%20Consultation/UBC%20Rapid%20Transit%20Line/UBC%20Line%20Planning%20Principles.ashx

UBC Line Consulatation Principles
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Get%20Involved/Public%20Consultation/UBC%20Rapid%20Transit%20Line/UBC%20Line%20Consult%20Principles.ashx

UBC Line FAQ
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Get%20Involved/Public%20Consultation/UBC%20Rapid%20Transit%20Line/UBC%20Line%20FAQs.ashx

[allan_kuan]

is it just me or are they sort of duplicating studies made by the City of Vancouver on the UBC Line?

[twoNeurons]

I think I remember reading that hovercraft are very smooth over the water, if I'm not mistaken.

[Bureaucromancer]

It really is a VERY short run for anything like a hovercraft or hydrofoil. All thats really needed is accepting the rougher ride of higher speeds and getting new boats with hulls designed to reduce the wake.

At some point I'd still like to see the numbers on a tunnel vs >= 5 minute Seabus service, but certainly not until we have at least Fraser Valley rail, Evergreen, UBC and a North Van - Whistler commuter line.

[CLC]

Stephen Rees: Why do you want a subway to UBC?

http://www.granvilleonline.ca/gr/blogs/editors/stephen-rees/2009/09/14/why-do-you-want-subway-ubc#ixzz0RGYHLOjK

I don't want to quote because of too much nonsense of this particular article from the retired transportation expert

[kylemacmac]

Stephen Rees has wistful dreams of days when people took streetcars and lived/worked in their immediate neighbourhood. While this is a romantic notion, he completely ignores the fact that the majority of UBC students/workers get to school from around the region because there is not nearly enough housing on the Point Grey peninsula. The current choice to get to UBC is car or transit, and there is no high speed transit option to UBC at the moment, making car travel somewhat attractive. (U-Pass incentive aside) I hereby invite Stephen Rees and all other romantic planners to acknowledge the fact that a high-speed express transit mode of some form to UBC would be useful to the Vancouver region as a whole, as it would provide a way for people to further travel around the region without the use of a private automobile. Streetcar suburbs and people working above their shops is a nice notion, but the reality is that most people won't be doing this, even if gas is $3 a litre.

[kylemacmac]

Mr. Rees also completely ignores the lower cost per user of a mass transit system and talks about how we can enhance the streetscape with surface transport. Sure, enhancing the streetscape is kind of the best thing ever, but for the time being, but there is absolutely nothing louder on the road than a B-Line bus. The exhaust from a B-Line is like a ground level jet engine set on vibrate.

[The_Henry_Man]

Mr. Rees just wasted 60s of my life spewing nothing but streetcar propaganda. Thanks Mr. Rees.

[DKaz]

The B-Line as it is right now is having no problems attracting ridership. Why spend hundreds of millions getting nothing more than a B-Line on steel wheels? Little benefit in speed, little gain in ridership (we can run a B-Line a minute and improve seating configuration to get to 7200 ppphd). It's all bunk. If we're going to spend money, do it RIGHT with Skytrain even if it's just to Arbutus. Otherwise for a fraction of the cost of LRT we can build a dedicated No 3 Rd style busway down the central Broadway corridor up to Arbutus for a fraction of the price. The biggest improvement would be in the PM Peak, where it currently takes up to 50 minutes for a B-Line to get from UBC to Broadway Station, that could be slashed to 40 minutes. Remember, LRT gets stuck in traffic too.

[Metro-One]

I think these LRT people also forget how narrow Broadway is. Many LRT routes are on wide avenues. In Hiroshima, Japan, there are street grade LRT systems, but the main avenues these LRTs operate on are up to 100 meters wide! That is double the width of Broadway! Of course these LRTs are only one piece of their train infrastructure, they also have heavy rail lines in the city.

Also it is interesting to note that Vancouver's skytrain system obtains much higher ridership levels than Hiroshima's system.

[djh]

I think these LRT people also forget how narrow Broadway is. Many LRT routes are on wide avenues. In Hiroshima, Japan, there are street grade LRT systems, but the main avenues these LRTs operate on are up to 100 meters wide! That is double the width of Broadway! Of course these LRTs are only one piece of their train infrastructure, they also have heavy rail lines in the city.

Also it is interesting to note that Vancouver's skytrain system obtains much higher ridership levels than Hiroshima's system.

Do you mean 100 feet? Broadway is nowhere near 50 metres wide, more like 50 feet wide.

[Metro-One]

No I mean 100 meters, these avenues in Hiroshima have 3 lanes of through vehicle traffic each way, turning lanes, dedicated rail lanes with stations and wide sidewalks with garden elements. (there are even tree beds in the roads' mediums).

my point being is that Broadway is far to narrow to even consider having at grade rail on it for such a primary artery. (if it is only 50 feet than these avenues in Hiroshima are up to 4 times wider!

[cabotp]

Whatever is built it has to be grade separated. Having it sit at a traffic light or slowing down for a traffic light would not be good. So either it will have to be up on pillars which will never happen due to there just not being enough room or underground hence forth a subway.

I also wonder if and when an underground ALRT (subway) is built. It would suddenly become possibly the quickest way to UBC. So would a majority of those who take the 49 or 25 or 33 or 41 or 43 take the Broadway subway instead. Of course for those who live along those other routes it would be pointless to go all the way to Broadway just to catch the subway. But for those coming from south of the south of the Fraser or Burnaby or Tri-Cities. It would probably be quicker to get all the way to Commercial-Broadway or Broadway-City Hall.

[metroXpress]

I think these LRT people also forget how narrow Broadway is. Many LRT routes are on wide avenues. In Hiroshima, Japan, there are street grade LRT systems, but the main avenues these LRTs operate on are up to 100 meters wide! That is double the width of Broadway! Of course these LRTs are only one piece of their train infrastructure, they also have heavy rail lines in the city.

Also it is interesting to note that Vancouver's skytrain system obtains much higher ridership levels than Hiroshima's system.

Exactly, I don't think people would want to give up the two parking lanes....

[mr.x]

Read the UBC SkyTrain manifesto people, it says it all.:cool:

[cabotp]

^^ Can you post a link or point me in the right direction :D

[CLC]

Exactly, I don't think people would want to give up the two parking lanes....
Just see this picture from Hongkong for illustration:
http://i25.tinypic.com/29x8bqh.jpg
LRT on Broadway will become like Hongkong northwest's Yuen Long Main Road , which was a century old corridor but since late 1980s has got the light rail running through. Nowadays it is a daily congestion nightmare there.

[BCPhil]

http://www.granvilleonline.ca/gr/blogs/editors/stephen-rees/2009/09/14/why-do-you-want-subway-ubc#ixzz0RGYHLOjK


One developer in London told me that he could not sell property based on “a staircase at a street corner,” which is what a subway station is. That was why we built the Docklands Light Railway first—even though we knew it would not be big enough if we were successful. And sure enough the Jubilee Line got built soon after Canary Wharf opened.


Arrrrrrrrgh!

Arguing against Skytrain under Broadway and using the London DLR as your case study?

Hello! Are you there McFly? Think will ya?!

The DLR is a fully automated, fully grade separated, medium capacity rail way. The exact same thing as Skytrain! The only difference is that the DLR stations are closer together, about 750m from each other. Which is something we could do with Skytrain if we wanted. And Skytrain has a much higher capacity and is more successful than the DLR.

I can't tell if he is arguing for or against Skytrain anymore? Or is he saying that first we spend hundreds of millions on a slow system, THEN build the subway once it is proved he is a moron for not building Skytrain first? Why not cut to the chase and build Skytrain right away, no need to build a system that will be obsolete by the time it opens.

The reason it was so cheap was because it was built in a run down industrial part of town, that was then redeveloped. And they didn't build the DLR as a first step, it was an accident it was so popular. The system was too small for a growing mega city like London, so they had to augment it with a Subway.

And the lack of developments around stations in Vancouver is the Vancouver's problem, not a Skytrain problem. The city of Vancouver is deadly slow at developing land and rezoning. It will happen eventually, especially around some Canada Line stations, but if you want to see what Skytrain can do look at New West or Metrotown or Joyce, or Guilmore/Brentwood/Holdom.

There will be development around stations on Broadway, as pieces of the land, especially on Broadway are already zoned commercial (its easier to rezone commercial to mixed use high density than low density residential to something else). Just look at all the building that HAS happened on Cambie South of Broadway, and all along the Broadway Corridor from Cambie to Burrard. There is room for much more than Skytrain can help make a reality.

[mr.x]

From zewisystem:


Some balance please! An independant view of the RAV/Canada line.
September 11, 2009 by zweisystem

The following Email came Zweisystem’s way today and is certainly contrary to the hype and hoopla of other blogs claiming that the RAV Line is almost at capacity. The author of the item, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a party who works in local transit planning. Yes, the RAV/Canada line is up and running, but so is RAV’s debt clock and the ludicrous number of 100,000 passengers a day, claimed by TransLink, for the RAV line to ‘break even’, doesn’t take into account apportioning fares between RAV and bus, discount fares and the U-pass.

Yes the U-Pass, sounds good but it is the taxpayer who will be left with higher taxes and fees to subsidies deep discounted student fares enabling them to use premium priced metros!

A complete transportation financial fiasco is just around the corner.

Imagine, not knowing what impacts a project you have been working on for 7 years would have on the other adjoining transit corridors. Despite an administration staff of over 350 people, TransLink and its subsidiaries still can’t run a transit system.

During the last three days I have driven from White Rock to downtown Vancouver, taken the bus/train from White Rock to downtown Vancouver and today took the train to the airport and to Brighouse from the Bridgeport Station. I did this during the am peak period.

My initial observations…it took 6 minutes longer to go from White Rock to Granville or City Centre Station with the bus/train journey (66 minutes). Prior to the summer, I took the 351 from White Rock to Granville and Seymour during the am peak and it took 60 minutes. My car trip on Wednesday took 43 minutes.

I witnessed very little congestion, unlike other Expo Line stations, and found ample room to stand, unlike the Expo Line cars during the am peak. The journey in the tunnel was as expected dull. I was looking for leaks along Cambie Street, but I guess we will have to wait for the real rains to arrive. Most of the people on the train were young and appeared to be students and most of them got off downtown. Very few passengers got off at the 49th ave station and very few got off at City Hall station. Only two people wearing suits were on board and they came on at 12th, City Hall and going downtown. Very few people got on the train in Vancouver. Some at Broadway heading downtown but the train had ample room for them.

The return journey from downtown Vancouver to Bridgeport in Richmond was very comfortable as only 1/4 of the seats were occupied…this is till during the am peak period. Two people had small bags heading to the airport.

Today, I rode into Richmond Centre or Brighouse. The line is single track after the Landsdowne Mall. Most people got off at either Aberdeen or Landsdowne Mall. Returning back to Bridgeport station we waited two minutes after boarding before beginning the journey. The problem with single track guideways. At no time were the cars full or congested and at no time did I see more than a B-Line bus load on any of the Rmd trains. The airport mainly had sightseers who were going on a round trip to and from the airport. Four people on board had luggage.

I began to wonder how Translink is going to find the $70 million it needs to pay for their portion of the debt and for what they need to pay Intransient BC (SNC Lavalin) for operating the line. Each transit user that uses the train will be subsidized a minimum of $2,000 a year based on Translink’s boarding numbers of 77,000 per day!

It is still to early to guage the performance of this line. Once the ‘tourist’ user has satisfied their curiosity and people settle into the Fall commuting season, we will see what is happening.

I have sent an email to two Vancouver councillors asking whether or not the City is going to do trip counts on all its southern entry points, Knight Street-Oak-Arthur Laing Bridges, to see if traffic is less or more than what it was in the past. The City usually conducts traffic trip counts in November. It would be good to get that data since number challenged Falcon believes the train will reduce daily vehicle trips by 200,000 or 40% of the entire am peak period vehicles commuting on our region’s roadways.

I have also contacted the taxi association to find out how the line is impacting their business. They will not know until mid October or after the Cruise Ship season. The airport passenger stats show that from January to June of this year, passenger numbers are down by 15% or 1.2 million passengers from last year. All segments, domestic, transborder and international numbers are down. However, the cruise ship numbers are up from last year, increased by 8%, despite less sailings.

When I asked one of the execs with the London Underground just who takes the tube from Heathrow to Piccadilly (London) he answered, the budget traveller.

A friend who recently took the train from YVR to get to his home near Trout Lake in Vancouver was happy that his journey took only 45 minutes. I said that if he had taken a taxi he would have been home in 20 minutes. So perhaps if we are talking about efficiency, we should have more taxis or even vans for multiple passengers taking people to their destinations like they do in a lot of other cities in the world. Perhaps fares for taxis could be subsidized, it would be cheaper.

Just one final note…my car journey into Vancouver was amazingly fast. I don’t know why that is. One thing I did notice…Granville Street was without buses, it was so quiet I thought I might be someplace else. However, the golden rule states, if there is capacity on a roadway, it will be filled.












From Radio 1130 – Cambie merchants still waiting for Canada Line business boom. Not coming? Yes, Zweisystem told you so!
September 13, 2009 by zweisystem

Well the RAV/Canada line has been open for some time now and now one wonders where is all those subway passengers that were dying to shop on Cambie St., as promised by RAVCo. and InTransit BC?

Didn’t come? Well don’t hold your breathe, they’re not. It has been found in other jurisdictions where cut-and-cover subway construction has been done that it takes ten years for businesses to recouver financially. Unlike new light-rail lines, where adjacent business see about a 10% increase in revenue, businesses on top of a subway do not. The reason is simple; on-street/at-grade LRT transit customers see local businesses and with convenient stops can access them with little interruption of their journey. All subway passengers see is dank concrete and with widely spaced stations, seldom venture forth and patronize local businesses.

Zweisystem knew this, then why didn’t Gordon Campbell, Kevin Falcon, Susan Anton, Larry Campbell, TransLink’s planners, radio talk show hosts, reporters, and the rest who vaguely promised and/or spoke of a great upsurge in local business whence the RAV/Canada Line opened?

Dave White VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) | Saturday, September 12th, 2009 1:00 pm

It’s been nearly a month since the Canada Line opened, connecting downtown with Richmond and YVR. But Cambie Street business owners are still evaluating just what the line will mean for their businesses after enduring years of construction.

Leonard Schein with the Cambie Street Business Association says so far there hasn’t been a major spike in business. “We were looking forward to it, but the city is still doing some work and school is just back, and we’ll see over time how that does happen.”

Yip says her business is more likely to be successful with a solid customer base and community advertising.

Karyee Yip, who owns Honey Gifts on Cambie, isn’t expecting a boost because a station was never built in the Cambie Village. ‘It’s kind of disappointing that we lost a lot of business to build this line but we’re not really reaping a lot of benefits once the line is built.”





Commuting is harder now – A letter to the Vancouver Sun
September 16, 2009 by zweisystem

As predicted, the RAV/Canada Line has increased journey times for many transit customers, even those who commute directly to Vancouver. Despite ‘rose coloured glasses’ style stories in the mainstream media and ‘talk radio’, longer journey times translates into less people opting to take transit.
The letter does reveal two issues:
1) What percentage or portion of a student’s U-Pass is paid to In TransitBC? How is a U-Pass apportioned between RAV/Canada Line, SkyTrain and the bus?
2) The 480 Richmond to UBC bus still offers a direct (no-transfer) service and its riders are not forced onto RAV. Strange that, when Trans Link forces all bus customers from South of the Massy Tunnel to transfer to RAV. One wonders if having Liberal MLA’s has anything to do with providing a direct bus service?


Vancouver SunSeptember 16, 2009

The new commuting patterns have added 15 to 20 minutes each way to my commute from Ladner to the University of B.C. Most of this is due to poor connections, especially to the east-west lines on 41st and King Edward. The early 480 bus to UBC is jam-packed when it arrives at Bridgeport.

As for columnist Pete McMartin’s pleasant trip from Tsawwassen to Vancouver (Commute goes smoothly – anticipated chaos fails to show, Sept. 9), he travels at rush hour, rides for almost the full length of the line and doesn’t connect outside the downtown area. His situation is perfectly suited for the train.

Unfortunately, I am resigned to that fact that a longer commute is my sacrifice on the altar of the Olympics.

[BCPhil]

And people wonder why Translink is broke. It's because we have to cater to these cry babies who want door to door 1 seat service.

And I wish zewisystem would stop talking about subsidizing. Everything in BC is subsidized to some extent. There is no way LRT in the valley would be able to run for profit. If it could, CP, CN, BNSF or SYR would run their own passenger service between cities.

If we unsubsidized Translink, Skytrain and buses, and sold tickets for each ride (instead of an open 90 pass) and manipulated prices and schedules to try and break even, I think only 5 bus routes and possibly the Expo line would be left standing.

There is no way LRT would get built without subsidizing it's construction and operation. And people would still need to make connections with buses, as even LRT can't go down every road past everyone's house. So tickets would still be split between modes like they are now.

[mrjauk]

From zewisystem:


Some balance please! An independant view of the RAV/Canada line.
September 11, 2009 by zweisystem

The following Email came Zweisystem’s way today and is certainly contrary to the hype and hoopla of other blogs claiming that the RAV Line is almost at capacity. The author of the item, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a party who works in local transit planning. Yes, the RAV/Canada line is up and running, but so is RAV’s debt clock and the ludicrous number of 100,000 passengers a day, claimed by TransLink, for the RAV line to ‘break even’, doesn’t take into account apportioning fares between RAV and bus, discount fares and the U-pass.

Yes the U-Pass, sounds good but it is the taxpayer who will be left with higher taxes and fees to subsidies deep discounted student fares enabling them to use premium priced metros!

A complete transportation financial fiasco is just around the corner.

Imagine, not knowing what impacts a project you have been working on for 7 years would have on the other adjoining transit corridors. Despite an administration staff of over 350 people, TransLink and its subsidiaries still can’t run a transit system.

During the last three days I have driven from White Rock to downtown Vancouver, taken the bus/train from White Rock to downtown Vancouver and today took the train to the airport and to Brighouse from the Bridgeport Station. I did this during the am peak period.

My initial observations…it took 6 minutes longer to go from White Rock to Granville or City Centre Station with the bus/train journey (66 minutes). Prior to the summer, I took the 351 from White Rock to Granville and Seymour during the am peak and it took 60 minutes. My car trip on Wednesday took 43 minutes.

I witnessed very little congestion, unlike other Expo Line stations, and found ample room to stand, unlike the Expo Line cars during the am peak. The journey in the tunnel was as expected dull. I was looking for leaks along Cambie Street, but I guess we will have to wait for the real rains to arrive. Most of the people on the train were young and appeared to be students and most of them got off downtown. Very few passengers got off at the 49th ave station and very few got off at City Hall station. Only two people wearing suits were on board and they came on at 12th, City Hall and going downtown. Very few people got on the train in Vancouver. Some at Broadway heading downtown but the train had ample room for them.

The return journey from downtown Vancouver to Bridgeport in Richmond was very comfortable as only 1/4 of the seats were occupied…this is till during the am peak period. Two people had small bags heading to the airport.

Today, I rode into Richmond Centre or Brighouse. The line is single track after the Landsdowne Mall. Most people got off at either Aberdeen or Landsdowne Mall. Returning back to Bridgeport station we waited two minutes after boarding before beginning the journey. The problem with single track guideways. At no time were the cars full or congested and at no time did I see more than a B-Line bus load on any of the Rmd trains. The airport mainly had sightseers who were going on a round trip to and from the airport. Four people on board had luggage.

I began to wonder how Translink is going to find the $70 million it needs to pay for their portion of the debt and for what they need to pay Intransient BC (SNC Lavalin) for operating the line. Each transit user that uses the train will be subsidized a minimum of $2,000 a year based on Translink’s boarding numbers of 77,000 per day!

It is still to early to guage the performance of this line. Once the ‘tourist’ user has satisfied their curiosity and people settle into the Fall commuting season, we will see what is happening.

I have sent an email to two Vancouver councillors asking whether or not the City is going to do trip counts on all its southern entry points, Knight Street-Oak-Arthur Laing Bridges, to see if traffic is less or more than what it was in the past. The City usually conducts traffic trip counts in November. It would be good to get that data since number challenged Falcon believes the train will reduce daily vehicle trips by 200,000 or 40% of the entire am peak period vehicles commuting on our region’s roadways.

I have also contacted the taxi association to find out how the line is impacting their business. They will not know until mid October or after the Cruise Ship season. The airport passenger stats show that from January to June of this year, passenger numbers are down by 15% or 1.2 million passengers from last year. All segments, domestic, transborder and international numbers are down. However, the cruise ship numbers are up from last year, increased by 8%, despite less sailings.

When I asked one of the execs with the London Underground just who takes the tube from Heathrow to Piccadilly (London) he answered, the budget traveller.

A friend who recently took the train from YVR to get to his home near Trout Lake in Vancouver was happy that his journey took only 45 minutes. I said that if he had taken a taxi he would have been home in 20 minutes. So perhaps if we are talking about efficiency, we should have more taxis or even vans for multiple passengers taking people to their destinations like they do in a lot of other cities in the world. Perhaps fares for taxis could be subsidized, it would be cheaper.

Just one final note…my car journey into Vancouver was amazingly fast. I don’t know why that is. One thing I did notice…Granville Street was without buses, it was so quiet I thought I might be someplace else. However, the golden rule states, if there is capacity on a roadway, it will be filled.



There is so much b.s. here to respond to, that it would take me all night. I'll start with this part.

A friend who recently took the train from YVR to get to his home near Trout Lake in Vancouver was happy that his journey took only 45 minutes. I said that if he had taken a taxi he would have been home in 20 minutes.

And that friend would have paid anywhere from 6-8 times more--$30-40 dollars for the taxi versus $5.00 for the Skytrain. Sheesh!

[Metro-One]

I also love how the Cambie merchants were expecting an over night spike in sales, it takes months, if not years for any new transit service to find its place in the community, and for the community to shape itself around the transit line! Gradually the customers will come in as locals return to their old habits, and people traveling on the Canada line (to previously untravelled areas for them) start discovering places along Cambie they like.

Love you BCPhil, I feel this whole city needs a "Hello! Are you there McFly? Think will ya!?"

In the words of Biff Tannin, "Putting LRT down Broadway is as bad an idea as putting a screen door on a battleship."

[windscar]

Shouldn't that be "putting a screen door on a submarine"?

on another note I hate these whinny people, makes me wonder what's it will be like in 20 years.

[Metro-One]

Shouldn't that be "putting a screen door on a submarine"?

I wish there was an over the head emoticon. It is a line from "Back to the Future." The character Biff always screws up his phrases. You should watch it some time, great movies.

[BCPhil]

Sometimes I wish the complainers would make like a tree and get outta here.

[cabotp]

I think we all need to donate some cheese for these whiners . :koko:

What I would love to do is take all these idiots who moan and groan and ship them to an island and just let them moan amongst each other