[mr.x]

Restaurant or dinner trams have proven successful in a few cities around the world, most notably in Melbourne Australia. A restaurant tram is a very unique venue, with patrons having dinner while the tram trundles along various tram lines. Again, a simple tram line is exploited for service other than conveying commuters, adding to the ambiance of the LRT system and its surrounds.

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-broadway-follies-part-4-the-versatile-light-rail/





Fuck my life.

[CLC]

^ Restaurant or dinner trams are nothing new. Looking at the big picture, Melbourne has an aging and hard-to-fix transit network. It is so unreliable and always became top news item there.

[lezard]

Hah hah I am just referring to the garbage Zweisystem wrote yesterday in the comments in the Georgia Straight article. I thought it was too funny so I thought to write some sarcasm in here. He actually quoted in there that the "Did you know that LRT would go 110km/hr" on Broadway. The link to that comment section is found a couple of pages back here. I thought to combine it with the tourist reference as any train or vehicle travelling at 110km/hr on any street level grade would crash into anything in its path as any LRT even if it had its own right of way can't be truely seperated unless it is grade seperated being elevated or underground. Now whether that comment in the article was the real Zwei or not, well who knows.

Well, you and I can both at least agree that anything man made hurtling down Broadway at 110 km/h is an accident waiting to happen.

As for the dinner tram, Bern actually has one:

http://www.bernmobil.ch/unternehmen/fahrzeugpark.php
:tup:

Bottom of the page.

[BCPhil]

Here's something to read during the commercial breaks while the Canucks are winning tonight. This is a study to determine what to build after the Millennium line to Commercial is finished.

Beyond the B-Line:
Broadway/Lougheed Rapid Transit Line
Phase II - Commercial Drive West

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/ubcline/pdf/beyondthebline.pdf


from the Executive Summary:

Introduction
Between May and December, 1999, three partner agencies — the City of Vancouver, TransLink and Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. (a Provincial company) — jointly funded and directed a $200,000 rapid transit study. Assisted by transportation and land use professionals, the consultant team examined how public transit could be upgraded along part of the “Broadway corridor”. Currently, a combination of the #99 B-Line (articulated limited stop) plus #9 (regular local) buses serve the corridor.

Just read through this document.

The first thing I find interesting is that it calls Broadway to Granville or UBC, Phase 2. To me it seems that during construction of Phase one (already underway when this document was prepared) Broadway was going to be the next project, ahead of Coquitlam and ahead of Richmond. It just goes to show noone is really sure of what's going to happen around here. And for those of you against Broadway construction before somewhere else, it seems that Broadway was forced to the backburner first. When the Millennium line was opened, it was called the Nowhere to nowhere line for a reason: it really needed to go all the way through to at least Granville to be fully effective.

It's surprisingly through. It's over 10 years old and far more advanced in planning than the current consultation process. It goes beyond just mode options but on to actual figures and construction details. It estimates exact station locations, the width of ROW and station platforms, and general construction and operating cost, and compares it to possible ridership.

Why can't the current consultation be this advanced? Why not present several best case cenerios and be upfront about their acutal features: projected cost and ridership and location and construction methods. The current consultation seems so vague in comparison, like a battle for hearts and minds instead of over actual opinions and reasoning based on facts. It's like Translink is trying to feel their way the situation that will sit best with voters, instead of trying to solve this rationally.

One of the only facts the document is short on (and it points this out throughout the document) is where the Vancouver-Richmond Skytrain will be. If they knew exactly where, (Cambie Street) and added potential riders from the Evergreen Line, this document would be a complete appraisal of the different solutions.

It goes quite specifically into the concerns over each method, including the isolation of Skytrain vs the impact on pedestrian, bike, and vehicle traffic LRT would have. LRT would liven up the streetscape, but Skytrain is a proven motivator of new large scale development. It points out some interesting problems with LRT on the corridor, like the number of major roads in crosses, as well as bike lanes. With LRT on the surface, there would be little or no room for bikes on Broadway as even the sidewalks would need to be narrowed, as well station platforms would be too narrow to be easily used by wheelchairs.

A lot of thought went into this document, and they should really use a lot of it during the current consultation process. Many of the pros and cons of each system still hold true for the Broadway Corridor 10 years later.

[Whalleyboy]

I agree with you, Surrey/Langley does need transit, but the question is where. From King Geroge station, the city stretches out in 3 directions, West, East and South. Where do you send Skytrain or build LRT. Langley City is a logical Choice, but so would be a redeveloped Newton or Guildford. And what about the density along Scott Road or the super growth being seen in South Surrey and Cloverdale?

Broadway, is a priority, and it's easily identifiable. It's clear. In this thread the debate is weather it should be surface rail on Broadway or subway under 10th. We are talking the difference of a block in terms of corridor width.

For years there was debate on where Evergreen should go. The destination was determined, but the path of the track could have gone through the NW or SE, and that was debated for years (and sometimes I still don't think we got it 100% right, with not enough stations or passing through some underdeveloped land).

In Surrey, we don't even know where we want to go. Do we build rail to Guildford, or down King George to Newton. Do we push Skytrain down Fraser Highway to Langley or LRT cross town on one of the avenues? What about 200th street, where does that connect to the grid? There are a good dozen potential town centers south of the Fraser, not many of them conveniently located in a straight line. And could any of them at this point support the ridership requirements of even the investment of LRT/Tram?

Surrey does need transit, but I still think there are too many unanswered questions regarding exactly where in Surrey we need it first; right now it seems to be a 5 way tie (Scottsdale, Newton, Guildford, Fleetwood, Langley City) with a bunch more close seconds scattered around. The end game would be all of them, but the first move is always the most critical.

Broadway is such an easy choice and desperately needed to serve current riders, and attract new riders who avoid Broadway transit like the plague. I think there is at least 1 potential rider for every 1 currently along Broadway that would switch over from driving on opening day of the Broadway line. Surrey needs to get their act together, like Vancouver, and demand Translink and the province where they want it. Vancouver's demand is very specific: Rapid Transit is desperately needed on Broadway to UBC. Surrey doesn't have a demand, and their desire isn't that specific, it's just: Transit Please.

For SoF transit i think Guildford down 104 to central then central to Newton and then from newton take the old Interurban route past cloverdale and right into Langley city centre is the best option. Sure it won't be the fastest route out there but its the connections it makes. Plus if it is rails it will be able to go alot fast at times when i bus can not. I've looked at this route multiple times bus connections can be made to this route in main areas feeding people on to the line. Plus it is only one route and it connects so much.

[allan_kuan]

Rather than doing big zig-zag detours all over the place I'd make Surrey Central one of the main transit centres... then have LRT or SkyTrain networks radiate out of that location.

[jsbertram]

He also mentions dinner trains, I suppose we can have a hot dog vendor on the train, I don't think there will be much time for dinner, well maybe if there was an accident in the way...

I like the Bar Cars on the commuter trains leaving Grand Central and Penn at the end of the day. Nice to have a beer or scotch on the way home after work. They even have their own website: BarCar.Com

Here, we'd need to commute from Hope to Vancouver for an equivalent time & distance that some people have for their commute to NYC. I just smile when someone starts b*tching about their commute from White Rock or Langley.

I remember hearing a story about one of the Bronfman brothers who lived in Montreal and commuted by company helicopter to the Seagram Building in NYC several times a week for meetings.

[Whalleyboy]

Rather than doing big zig-zag detours all over the place I'd make Surrey Central one of the main transit centres... then have LRT or SkyTrain networks radiate out of that location.

it would be great to have that but the way it takes for things to get done here lately if we got this connection dont most of the main place would be done

[jsbertram]

Just read through this document.

The first thing I find interesting is that it calls Broadway to Granville or UBC, Phase 2. To me it seems that during construction of Phase one (already underway when this document was prepared) Broadway was going to be the next project, ahead of Coquitlam and ahead of Richmond. It just goes to show noone is really sure of what's going to happen around here. And for those of you against Broadway construction before somewhere else, it seems that Broadway was forced to the backburner first. When the Millennium line was opened, it was called the Nowhere to nowhere line for a reason: it really needed to go all the way through to at least Granville to be fully effective.

It's surprisingly through. It's over 10 years old and far more advanced in planning than the current consultation process. It goes beyond just mode options but on to actual figures and construction details. It estimates exact station locations, the width of ROW and station platforms, and general construction and operating cost, and compares it to possible ridership.

Why can't the current consultation be this advanced? Why not present several best case cenerios and be upfront about their acutal features: projected cost and ridership and location and construction methods. The current consultation seems so vague in comparison, like a battle for hearts and minds instead of over actual opinions and reasoning based on facts. It's like Translink is trying to feel their way the situation that will sit best with voters, instead of trying to solve this rationally.

One of the only facts the document is short on (and it points this out throughout the document) is where the Vancouver-Richmond Skytrain will be. If they knew exactly where, (Cambie Street) and added potential riders from the Evergreen Line, this document would be a complete appraisal of the different solutions.

It goes quite specifically into the concerns over each method, including the isolation of Skytrain vs the impact on pedestrian, bike, and vehicle traffic LRT would have. LRT would liven up the streetscape, but Skytrain is a proven motivator of new large scale development. It points out some interesting problems with LRT on the corridor, like the number of major roads in crosses, as well as bike lanes. With LRT on the surface, there would be little or no room for bikes on Broadway as even the sidewalks would need to be narrowed, as well station platforms would be too narrow to be easily used by wheelchairs.

A lot of thought went into this document, and they should really use a lot of it during the current consultation process. Many of the pros and cons of each system still hold true for the Broadway Corridor 10 years later.

I agree, this "beyond the B-Line" report should have been a good jumping-off point, but I've found that each round of planning seems to politely ignore previous documents. It'll be interesting to see at the end of the UBC line study how closely it meshes with the "beyond the B-Line" study, and the others that have been done since the 80s.

Millennium Phase II (to Coquitlam) was supposed to start construction shortly after Phase I reached Commercial, but politics got involved. While Phase I was being built, there was an election in 2001 and the Liberals came to power, so there was no way that they were going to spend money on SkyTrain in NDP ridings by building Phase II.

There were some rumours that Premier Clark (before stepping down during his Deck-gate scandal) was trying to get the last station named after the streets it crossed (Clark Dr. and Glen St.) so the station would be Glen-Clark station. Wiser heads decided it would be named for the nearby Vancouver Community College - VCC Station.

While the politics were being waged, the "Beyond the B-Line" report was produced, but the Liberals were still unwilling to build Millennium Phase III in Vancouver and Phase II in Coquitlam which would mostly benefit NDP ridings.

Meanwhile, the evergreen line was being changed from SkyTrain (too expensive) to LRT (too slow) to Diesel railcars (!!) to B-Line buses (good enough stop-gap), back to LRT along Lougheed, back to SkyTrain through PoCo (still expensive, but something to placate voters and mayors before the 2005 election).

Then the Olympics were won and RAV upset all these plans, because until then Richmond Skytrain was 4th or lower on the list of major transit projects after Vancouver, Coquitlam and Surrey (not always in that order). Now RAV to the airport was top of the list despite Gordo maintaining "this decision has nothing to do with the Olympics".

Evergreen got bumped and also got more expensive because its taking longer to start construction.

Various news stories are saying the Libs want Evergreen in Coquitlam done by 2014 (with another BC election in 2013), and Millennium extended to Cambie, Granville or Arbutus (depending on costs) by 2020. This planning process for the UBC Line may let them announce its approval in time for 2013 election, and get construction happening so its a showcase of BC Government Largesse to Vancouver during the 2016 and 2019 elections.

This assumes the libs don't implode in the next 10 years, and the government doesn't change to NDP, Greens, or Socreds who could kill SkyTrain expansion as a "failed Liberal policy"

[splashflash]

There were some rumours that Premier Clark (before stepping down during his Deck-gate scandal) was trying to get the last station named after the streets it crossed (Clark Dr. and Glen St.) so the station would be Glen-Clark station. Wiser heads decided it would be named for the nearby Vancouver Community College - VCC Station.


I remember this as being a joke from the start, and never being seriously considered.


One of the only facts the document is short on (and it points this out throughout the document) is where the Vancouver-Richmond Skytrain will be. If they knew exactly where, (Cambie Street) and added potential riders from the Evergreen Line, this document would be a complete appraisal of the different solutions.


The report states that it is important to know where the RAV line would be build, as it would influence ridership on the Phase II – Granville might not be as cost effective as a Cambie terminus. New ridership sensitivity analyses should be completed (which I am sure they will). Also, community consultation needs to be redone as ten years have already elapsed since the previous consultation.
What is odd is that the six options exclude the Phase II recommendation – Skytrain + rapid bus
This option seems the most logical to me as rail rapid transit will certainly not be built to UBC as one project. The lrt options would probably have a cost-benefit analysis similar to lrt for the Evergreen Line – the poorest of seven options - but since it would be less costly than a Skytrain, the lrt lobby would push for it.
Does the West Broadway Business Association have a stronger adherence west of Arbutus than on central Broadway (Main to Arbutus)? If so, rail rapid transit could be promised to Cambie, Granville, or Arbutus, and either rapid bus or lrt west, the default being rapid bus.

[jsbertram]

The Buzzer Blog has an article on a proposal to build bus-only freeways to improve transit time over long distances. This is from an era when the freeway was King and the solution to every transportation problem, so we may be thankful it was another idea never happened.

Although it looks eerily similar to SkyTrain on Terminal Avenue east of Main St. Station.

http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2010/05/1959-buzzer-trumpets-fast-buses-on-freeways/

and the PDF of that Buzzer issue:
http://buzzer.translink.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/1959_05_22.pdf

[racc]

This assumes the libs don't implode in the next 10 years, and the government doesn't change to NDP, Greens, or Socreds who could kill SkyTrain expansion as a "failed Liberal policy"

Actually, it was the Socreds who built the Expo Line and the NDP who built the Millennium Line. Planning was well underway for the Evergreen Line under the NDP and the Liberals killed it when they came to power. Until the Evergreen Line is built, the Liberals won't have built any SkyTrain. How could the Greens oppose the Ever-Green Line :)

[mr.x]

Actually, it was the Socreds who built the Expo Line and the NDP who built the Millennium Line. Planning was well underway for the Evergreen Line under the NDP and the Liberals killed it when they came to power. Until the Evergreen Line is built, the Liberals won't have built any SkyTrain. How could the Greens oppose the Ever-Green Line :)

If I remember it correctly...


...it was the NDP that killed the Socreds plan to build SkyTrain to Richmond on Cambie in favour of the Millennium Line to serve their Burnaby and Tri-City ridings. Then the Liberals came along and killed the NDP phase II plans for the Millennium Line in Coquitlam and Broadway West. :p

Oh, how I love our provincial government...

[jsbertram]

Found this on the Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Discussion group:

http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2010/vch2010_0013.jpg

my fav photo of the village so far. nice and dense :)
http://www.globalairphotos.com/images/bc/vancouver/2010/vch2010_0013.jpg

Seeing how wide the centre median needs to be for the future streetcar tracks on 1st ave gives a good approximation of how much of Broadway would be needed for on-street LRT or streetcar.

It also hints at how little of Broadway would be left for driving, parking and sidewalks.

[jsbertram]

found this on the Golden Ears Bridge group:

Interesting. Golden Ears Bridge cost about $800 million and serves 20,000 mostly single-occupancy vehicles a day with revenues in the neighborhood of $3 per vehicle. Canada Line cost less than three times as much yet serves five times more people with similar per-ride revenues.

Something to think about when deciding what our next investment in transportation infrastructure should be...

I agree .. even building TBM tunnels for SkyTrain under Broadway would be cheaper on a per-ride basis when compared to new freeways and bridges.

But first we'd have the issue of condemning over 100 blocks of land from UBC to the Grandview Highway Connector of Highway 1 to build the Cross-Vancouver Freeway ... That's a show-stopper.

[nname]

According to Toronto's TransitCity, it is 151.5M/km

(Source (http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00628/table-original_revi_628461a.pdf))

I'm surprised... I don't think we have yet to build a SkyTrain line that comes to even close to that number...

[jsbertram]

So a simple back-of-the envelope estimate would peg the 12 KM UBC Line using LRT at $1.89 Billion.

This isn't too far off from some other figures I've seen for TBM tunneling (1.8 - 2.0 Billion) on other projects.

It would be nice to find the final costs for the TBM tunneling and Cut & Cover tunneling that was used for Canada Line construction, so we could see the real-world costs involved in tunneling in the Vancouver area. From those numbers we could do the back-of-the envelope estimates for 12 KM of TBM tunnels vs 12 KM of Cut and Cover tunnels.

[BCPhil]

If I remember it correctly...


...it was the NDP that killed the Socreds plan to build SkyTrain to Richmond on Cambie in favour of the Millennium Line to serve their Burnaby and Tri-City ridings. Then the Liberals came along and killed the NDP phase II plans for the Millennium Line in Coquitlam and Broadway West. :p

Oh, how I love our provincial government...

Yeah, the NDP did put the RAV on the back burner when they came to power. The socreds wanted to extend Skytrain from Waterfront then head South (which is why the document things anywhere from Main to Arbutus was a possible RAV corridor, it could have curved back under any part of downtown).

But, this document was prepared in 1999. It called extending to Broadway Phase II, 2 years before the election.

I think to Coquitlam was supposed to be Part of Phase I. The original T Line Plan was for all three sections to be built at once. But I guess Glen needed some money for a highway between Parksville and Courtney, and some fast ferries and made the extension to Granville phase II.

Then when it became apparent that the Millennium line would not have huge ridership when finished they cancelled the segment to Coquitlam, and tried to fasttrack "Phase II" to save some political face with the voters.

I remember the line being said it goes from Nowhere to Nowhere when it opened. And that was an accurate assessment. Besides Lougheed station and Broadway, there was absolutely nothing along the line when it was built. I used to take it to BCIT first year it opened, and it was deserted compared to today. There were times when I had my own private train car on the way to school.

If the election happened a little later or the NDP won, I think they would have started construction on this "Phase II" ASAP and ignored Coquitlam until Phase III (or later). It does make a lot of sense, as adding a major destination (central Broadway) to the Millennium line could have kept it from being as bad on paper as the fast ferries were.

But the NDP lost the election, and to wipe the pallet clean, the Libs tossed anything to do with any plans the NDP had. It might have been a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but back then something really needed to be done. If the libs studied this instead of go their own way, Phase II probably would have been nearing completion before we won the Olympic Bid and started with RAV (and we would be right where we are right now for Evergreen Line).

[BCPhil]

So a simple back-of-the envelope estimate would peg the 12 KM UBC Line using LRT at $1.89 Billion.

This isn't too far off from some other figures I've seen for TBM tunneling (1.8 - 2.0 Billion) on other projects.

It would be nice to find the final costs for the TBM tunneling and Cut & Cover tunneling that was used for Canada Line construction, so we could see the real-world costs involved in tunneling in the Vancouver area. From those numbers we could do the back-of-the envelope estimates for 12 KM of TBM tunnels vs 12 KM of Cut and Cover tunnels.

In the Beyond the BLine document, the number seem pretty accurate. They were just coming off doing financing for Millennium line and LRTs were starting to pop up everywhere.

They pegged the cost of doing a bored tunnel for Skytrain to Arbutus at a little bit less than LRT all the way to UBC, for about the same kind of social and economic results, however Skytrain + RB would be cheaper to maintain than LRT and generate more new riders, meaning less cost per rider that the improvements would attract.

[nname]

In the Beyond the BLine document, the number seem pretty accurate. They were just coming off doing financing for Millennium line and LRTs were starting to pop up everywhere.

They pegged the cost of doing a bored tunnel for Skytrain to Arbutus at a little bit less than LRT all the way to UBC, for about the same kind of social and economic results, however Skytrain + RB would be cheaper to maintain than LRT and generate more new riders, meaning less cost per rider that the improvements would attract.

But note that the LRT plan are only for 2-cars trains (ie. ~55m station platform), which gives an ultimate capacity of around 6500pphpd when the train is running at 3min headway. This kind of capacity might be enough back in 2000, but definitly not after the introduction of B-Line and U-Pass to UBC, and from looking at the diagram, major works are required for longer station platform at many of the stations (namely, Alma). I think this would drive up the cost significantly.

State clearly from page 23 of the document:
Operations - The LRT alternative would operate between Commercial to UBC with each train making all stops. Service would be provided by two-car trains during most hours, although single-car operation may be sufficient during some periods. Two-car trains provide a practical capacity in the range of 320 passengers. During peak hours, 3 minute headways would be provided, with 5 to 10 minute service midday, evenings, and Saturdays; and 10 to 15 minute service during late nights and on Sundays. The proof-of-payment system would allow use of all doors for loading, resulting in an average dwell time of 20 seconds. Maximum speed of the system would be 50 km/hour.

Compare to the 99 B-Line:
- Articulated bus with capacity of 120 passengers
- Running 1.5~2min headway during peak, 4~5min midday, 8min evening and saturday, 10~12min sunday and late night
- Maximum speed of 80/50 km/h

Assume the "some period" includes late night and weekend, then the LRT would give 55% more capacity during peak to almost the exact same capacity during late night and Sunday. Very little improvement for an 800M (or 1B in today's $) system, eh?

[twoNeurons]

If the NDP came back into power, it's likely they would just bill the M-Line West as a continuation of their previous line that they started... and blame the current gov't for stalling it in the first place.

All this is a clear case of selfishness. Politicians not thinking about the people they are supposed to lead... but rather lloking for reasons to have their own backs patted.

It's as if these parties built the lines with shovels themselves.

Gimme a break, the only positive thing that political parties seem to do when it comes to transit is not preventing them from going ahead.

They should do more of that inaction and let them be built... instead of imposing their own agenda.

[Zassk]

Indeed, the Canada Line is in many ways a vindication of the Socred's original SkyTrain plan, which called for the RAV line to be built first in the mid-90's, immediately after the Surrey extension. I remember how, with a sinking feeling, I read that the NDP had banished the RAV line into a footnote with an estimated completion date of 2017 (i.e. 25 years into the future at the time) - basically delaying it by 20 years from the original plan. Gordo's fast-tracking RAV for the Olympics was only 7 years earlier than Harcourt's plan, and about 15 years later than Vander Zalm's plan.

When the Millennium Line was built, I remember that some of the editorial commentary noted that the least important sections were being built first - particularly the Columbia-to-Lougheed segment which had been somewhat of an afterthought in the original vision for the line. The M-line was intended to be an east-west line crucially starting no further east than VGH. The NDP just built the cheapest section that touched the most NDP ridings for $1 billion, and then simultaneously spent $2.1 billion on the Island Highway instead (a highway that was sorely needed, but could have been built at half the cost or less).

[WarrenC12]

The NDP just built the cheapest section that touched the most NDP ridings for $1 billion, and then simultaneously spent $2.1 billion on the Island Highway instead (a highway that was sorely needed, but could have been built at half the cost or less).

The Island highway really was a kick in the groin to almost everybody in the province. It should have at least been tolled.

[jsbertram]

Indeed, the Canada Line is in many ways a vindication of the Socred's original SkyTrain plan, which called for the RAV line to be built first in the mid-90's, immediately after the Surrey extension. I remember how, with a sinking feeling, I read that the NDP had banished the RAV line into a footnote with an estimated completion date of 2017 (i.e. 25 years into the future at the time) - basically delaying it by 20 years from the original plan. Gordo's fast-tracking RAV for the Olympics was only 7 years earlier than Harcourt's plan, and about 15 years later than Vander Zalm's plan.

When the Millennium Line was built, I remember that some of the editorial commentary noted that the least important sections were being built first - particularly the Columbia-to-Lougheed segment which had been somewhat of an afterthought in the original vision for the line. The M-line was intended to be an east-west line crucially starting no further east than VGH. The NDP just built the cheapest section that touched the most NDP ridings, and then simultaneously spent $2.1 billion on the Island Highway instead (a highway that was sorely needed, but could have been built at half the cost or less).

It is my recollection that the 'millennium line' as originally planned was to run from Vancouver (Arbutus St, VGH, Cambie St, Main St - depending on where RAV was put) to Coquitlam through North Burnaby as a stand-alone line using LRT or something else other than SkyTraiin.

Then the politicians started fiddling & the NDP wasn't happy about putting in SkyTrain in a Liberal Vancouver riding, and it got chopped back to Clark (in a safe & solid NDP riding). As they dithered, the price went up and BC finances got worse, so Coquitlam got chopped to save money. Now it was no longer a self-contained line that had a place for its OMC (originally supposed to be in Coquitlam where there was cheap land), so adding the Columbia-to-Lougheed segment was cheaper than building to Coquitlam, and therefore it became SkyTrain instead of LRT. Now there was a way to get Millennium line cars to Edmonds OMC for storage & maintenance, and a way to get North Burnaby passengers to Surrey (with a transfer at Columbia).


With Liberal ridings all the way to UBC after Main St, it may happen under the Liberal banner, but there has to be a way for the Liberal MLAs to get the benefits (votes) without the detriments (voter anger with cut & cover; time & money wasted on pork projects going over budget & over schedule).

Another problem is that knowing there's an election every three years, they need to get the timing right so they can announce start of construction before an election campaign (and swing some votes their way), and have construction finished (or nearly done) when the next election campaign rolls around (see the shiney bauble I gave you? - vote again for me to get more treats).

[Zassk]

The Island highway really was a kick in the groin to almost everybody in the province. It should have at least been tolled.

And if you look at the deficits from those years, you see that the Island Hwy was basically built entirely on debt.

Anyway, back to Broadway...

[cabotp]

Another problem is that knowing there's an election every three years, they need to get the timing right so they can announce start of construction before an election campaign (and swing some votes their way), and have construction finished (or nearly done) when the next election campaign rolls around (see the shiney bauble I gave you? - vote again for me to get more treats).

All political parties do this. The liberals did it with all the Gateway projects and Canada Line.

Notice how the construction for the new Port Mann and Hwy 1 started just before the last election. Nothing much might have been done, but they had the construction vehicles out and about.

Now I'm not saying the NDP or the Green party or what ever party is in power. Because they all do the same damn thing.

The bigger problem is how people vote for a party based on projects.

[allan_kuan]

In a way politics needs to be overhauled based on the fact that almost every improvement that is needed here is somehow tied up like a leash to whichever party that gets elected. It's quite sad actually... if this sort of game keeps happening we'll barely get things done....

[trofirhen]

In a way politics needs to be overhauled based on the fact that almost every improvement that is needed here is somehow tied up like a leash to whichever party that gets elected. It's quite sad actually... if this sort of game keeps happening we'll barely get things done....

Very sad, and rather pathetic. Too bad that once a project is designed, approved,and the funds allocated, that a contractual agreement isn't put in place that must, by law, be honoured by the next party taking office to continue with that project to provide a sort of "seamless web."

That way, we'd have some assurance that what was planned is going to happen. I'm a dreamer, I guess, and a naïve one at that ....

[ozonemania]

Oh, I'm not sure having political process driving infrastructure/development is such a bad thing. At least things get in the pipeline every 3-4 years.

I think alot of this comes from Vancouver and the province still being so young. There's no denying that this town is alot less developed and mature than our eastern counterparts. So our politics reflect that -- building-up, attracting new migrants, etc.

Of course it would be nice if our politics were more well-rounded to things like civic issues... or that it wasn't such a circus gong show.

[cabotp]

Very sad, and rather pathetic. Too bad that once a project is designed, approved,and the funds allocated, that a contractual agreement isn't put in place that must, by law, be honoured by the next party taking office to continue with that project to provide a sort of "seamless web."

That way, we'd have some assurance that what was planned is going to happen. I'm a dreamer, I guess, and a naïve one at that ....

While I like the idea of keeping things going. The problem is what if a party wins a vote. Because they campaigned against some project that the previous party was looking to build.

To me the problem isn't that the idea of projects start and stop. It is that political parties use these projects to get votes.

[cabotp]

Oh, I'm not sure having political process driving infrastructure/development is such a bad thing. At least things get in the pipeline every 3-4 years.

I think alot of this comes from Vancouver and the province still being so young. There's no denying that this town is alot less developed and mature than our eastern counterparts. So our politics reflect that -- building-up, attracting new migrants, etc.

Of course it would be nice if our politics were more well-rounded to things like civic issues... or that it wasn't such a circus gong show.

I'm pretty sure the same political process happens in other cities in the western world.

[officedweller]

It is my recollection that the 'millennium line' as originally planned was to run from Vancouver (Arbutus St, VGH, Cambie St, Main St - depending on where RAV was put) to Coquitlam through North Burnaby as a stand-alone line using LRT or something else other than SkyTraiin.

Then the politicians started fiddling & the NDP wasn't happy about putting in SkyTrain in a Liberal Vancouver riding, and it got chopped back to Clark (in a safe & solid NDP riding). As they dithered, the price went up and BC finances got worse, so Coquitlam got chopped to save money. Now it was no longer a self-contained line that had a place for its OMC (originally supposed to be in Coquitlam where there was cheap land), so adding the Columbia-to-Lougheed segment was cheaper than building to Coquitlam, and therefore it became SkyTrain instead of LRT. Now there was a way to get Millennium line cars to Edmonds OMC for storage & maintenance, and a way to get North Burnaby passengers to Surrey (with a transfer at Columbia).


Also bear in mind that the Livable Region Strategic Plan contained the "T" line - which is the Columbia to Lougheed segment. So that segment didn't come out of thin air.
If the Broadway-Lougheed segment had been LRT, the Columbia-Lougheed segment would have eventually been built as LRT as well.
If I recall correctly, the insistence of the various municipalities for LRT underpasses at major intersections caused the cost of LRT to rise, approaching SkyTrain cost - so they switched to SkyTrain for higher capacity.

[Metro-One]

The Island highway really was a kick in the groin to almost everybody in the province. It should have at least been tolled.

And this is echoed with the Sea to Sky, another kick in the groin to those in the interior especially.

I like the Island highway, but I actually think it should have been built to full freeway standard, not random interchanges and traffic lights.

Sorry to go off topic :)

[WarrenC12]

The Sea to Sky was less expensive and serves more people... but there's an argument to toll any large project at this point.

[Metro-One]

:previous: I think claiming that the sea to sky serves more people is hilarious. Actually look at the population of mid and north island before you claim such nonsense.

The Inland Island Highway directly serves these communities:

Nanaimo - 92 361 metro
Comox / Courtenay - 49 214
Campbell River - 32 000

along with a few smaller communities.

And it is the trunk line leading to all North Island communities such as Port Hardy and also for the first 20 to 30 km of its length services those going to west Island communities such as Port Alberni and Tofino.

It is a working highway for an entire region.

The Sea to sky directly services:

Squamish & area - 14 949
Whistler - 9 241

and then it acts as the trunk line for Pemberton and a few smaller communities along its route. Once you reach areas such as Lillooet most people will choose to use the Canyon for their travel.

While I personally am not against either expansions I do feel the Island expansion is more just for it services more people and more varied economic activities

Your feeling towards the island Highway being worse that it is not tolled than the Sea to Sky expansion is simply based on which political party you prefer, and that perfectly displays the problem with this province.

I am tired of the "If the NDP did it, then it is bad and a boondoggle, but if the Liberals did it, it is great!"

and the reverse "If the Liberals did it, then it is bad and a boondoggle, but if the NDP did it, it is great!"

And this mentality leads to such problems as we are having with the Broadway mass transit expansion.

[racc]

The Sea to Sky was less expensive and serves more people... but there's an argument to toll any large project at this point.

Only around 14,000 vehicles per day use the busiest sections of Sea to Sky. There was really no need to invest so much money in it. Not a very good use of taxpayer dollars. They should have just fixed the worse safety problems and called it a day. The rest could have been spent upgrading rail service. It was hilarious that Alberta scooped the train to smooze VIPs and business leaders during the Olympics who did not want to use the new expensive highway.

[KPELLY]

The new highway is actually called the Inland Island Highway. The Island Highway follows the coast. The Inland Island Highway cuts the travel time between Nanaimo and Campbell River from 2.5 hours to around 1.5 hours and is vital for the Island's transportation.

[giallo]

While the Sea to Sky highway was expensive, I think it will be worth it in the long run. I mean, is everyone forgetting where the road goes to and how much that location bring in tourist dollar-wise to the province? The amount of growth Whistler has seen and will continue to see needed to be addressed. That donkey trail leading up to the resort was a dangerous embarrassment. An upgrade was definitely needed.

[Zassk]

The Sea to Sky could not have been built for much less money without compromising on the safety aspect of the project. That said, the Island Highway is overdue for its own "Sea to Sky project" in the form of the Malahat section, and I do hope that the Malahat is built to at least the standards of the Sea to Sky, if not better.

[ozonemania]

While the Sea to Sky highway was expensive, I think it will be worth it in the long run. I mean, is everyone forgetting where the road goes to and how much that location bring in tourist dollar-wise to the province? The amount of growth Whistler has seen and will continue to see needed to be addressed. That donkey trail leading up to the resort was a dangerous embarrassment. An upgrade was definitely needed.On a personal note the highway upgrade was important for me, as I had a close family friend die along there, having driven off the edge into a steep escarpment, and was missing for weeks.

[mezzanine]

In a way politics needs to be overhauled based on the fact that almost every improvement that is needed here is somehow tied up like a leash to whichever party that gets elected. It's quite sad actually... if this sort of game keeps happening we'll barely get things done....

It's not as bad here as in Japan. The rapid transit lines here at least follow the LRSP and are part of a larger strategy. In japan, they build some newer shinkansen lines to nowhere out of sheer politicking.

At the other end of the spectrum, some argue that the Joetsu Shinkansen Line is a prime example of pork-barrel politics gone bad. The late Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, a legendary mover and shaker, had a strong influence in getting the line built to his native Niigata Prefecture, which was known more for its rice paddies than its tourist attractions.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20081209i1.html

[jsbertram]

Just to be clear, my first choice has always been SkyTrain from VCC to UBC, and nothing has changed mind from that choice.

However, I realized while looking at the six UBC Line Study alternatives that the preference of one alternative over the others shouldn’t be necessary. Using a layered transit approach, some elements of these six alternatives can be built in stages, starting with bus improvements, adding Streetcars and later SkyTrain. Because each stage is not dependent on the others for its completion, each stage can be built according to its own schedule and financing arrangements.


A) Buses

Regular local buses to UBC get improved to the best of their capabilities and are supplemented by B-Line or Express buses.

New UBC Express buses

X84 UBC Express from Millennium Line VCC Station to UBC via 4th Ave with stops at GNW Campus, Canada Line Olympic Station and Granville Island. The X84 runs non-stop express between Granville Island and the UBC Transit Hub. This supplements the existing 84 route which remains as a local bus. The reverse route is X84 VCC Station Express with similar stops.

X44 UBC Express from Waterfront to UBC via Burrard Street and 4th Ave with stops at Robson, Davie, and Burrard/4th,and then runs non-stop express to the UBC Transit Hub. This supplements the existing 44 route. The reverse route is X44 Waterfront Station Express with similar stops.

X43 UBC Express from Expo Line Joyce Station to UBC via 41st Ave with stops at Langara and Canada Line 41st Ave Station (with a future stop at Arbutus Corridor). The X43 runs non-stop express between 41st Ave Station (later the Arbutus Corridor station) and the UBC Transit Hub. This supplements the existing 43 and 41 routes. The reverse route is X43 Joyce Station Express with similar stops.

X101 UBC Express from Canada Line Marine Drive Station to UBC via Marine Dr. (with a future stop at Arbutus Corridor), and runs non-stop express between Marine Drive Station (later the Arbutus Corridor station) and the UBC Transit Hub. This is a new Route. The reverse route is X101 Marine Drive Station Express with similar stops.

By using these UBC Express buses, the 1/3 of riders who are only traveling exclusively between the UBC Transit Hub and a Skytrain Station or Waterfront Station can be separated from the rest of the bus riders who want other stops serviced by local or B-Line buses that are also traveling to or from UBC. These Express routes would likely start as standard size buses, but if ridership increases sufficiently, articulated buses can be used instead. Because these Express buses would have few stops, they will have faster service to UBC than local buses going to UBC.

99 B-Line UBC gets upgraded to BRT or BRT-lite from Commercial Dr. Transit Hub via Broadway through the Arbutus Transit Hub to the UBC Transit Hub. Stops would remain as they are with the current 99 B-Line. The reverse route is 99 B-Line Commercial & Broadway.

Some of the BRT features like traffic light priority, no-step platform loading, and pre-purchased ticketing could be used on the UBC Express routes so they can operate faster too. Even with the UBC Express and B-Line having similar features, there should be some distinction between the two types of service, since the 9 B-Line has a dozen stops between the Skytrain station and the UBC Transit Hub.


B) Streetcar

Phase 1:

The Downtown Streetcar is built according to the City of Vancouver plans, with an extension from Granville Island to the Arbutus Transit Hub at Arbutus Corridor @ Broadway using the abandoned CPR line.

Phase 2:

Extend the Streetcar line down the Arbutus Corridor to 16th Ave, west on 16th Ave to UBC Wesbrook Mall, and North on Wesbrook Mall to the UBC Transit Hub. This can be built on the existing 16th Ave 40-foot wide median that runs from Trafalgar (Choices Market) to Wesbrook Mall at UBC. Using this median allows Streetcars to be added without reducing the existing traffic and parking lanes along 16th Ave. 16th Ave could use more of the median to create extra width for sidewalks or to add bike lanes to UBC. A short tunnel from 14th Ave & Arbutus Corridor curving west under 16th Ave to Trafalgar can be used to connect to the 16th Ave Streetcar median on the section of 16th Avenue between Arbutus and Trafalgar that isn’t wide enough for Streetcar tracks, traffic lanes and residential parking. This short six block-long tunnel would also be constructed so the streetcar can be extended south down the Arbutus Corridor in the future. Treating 16th Avenue as a streetcar boulevard may also allow residential and commercial improvements at major intersections – Arbutus, Trafalgar, MacDonald, Dunbar, Wesbrook – that aren’t feasible now because of existing transit and traffic limitations.

With the Streetcar running from Main St. Station to the UBC Transit Hub, this could reduce ridership on the local, B-Line and Express routes to UBC as riders can take advantage of the quicker access to UBC by the streetcar.

Phase 3:

Extend the Streetcar line east from Canada Line Olympic Village / Main Street to Millennium Line VCC Station. This can use one or two of the existing CN yard tracks adjacent to GNW Campus, and should be built to accommodate the future overhead SkyTrain Millennium extension to UBC that will also be run between GNW Campus and the CN rail yard. With the Streetcar running from VCC Station to the UBC Transit Hub, the x84 Express bus may be retired.

Phase 4:

UBC Streetcar loop using Wesbrook Mall, Thunderbird Blvd, West Mall, University Blvd and UBC Transit Hub to provide local transit service within UBC. It can be built so that the 16th Ave Streetcar can loop through UBC before returning to Downtown Vancouver and Main St station or VCC Station.

Phase 5:

Extend the Streetcar line from Granville Island around Credit Union building (following the abandoned CPR alignment) into a new tunnel under False Creek and a new Burrard Street subway tunnel from the north shore of False Creek to the Convention Centre. Extend the Streetcar line south on Arbutus corridor to Marine Drive.


C) SkyTrain

Millennium Line extension from VCC Station along the CN yard north of GNW Campus, South in a tunnel under Prince Edward St, west in a tunnel under 10th Avenue from Kingsgate Mall to UBC Transit Hub. Routing under 10th Ave and building with TBM methods would have minor interruptions on Broadway and the major cross-streets. By staying on the 10th Avenue alignment for the entire length, the jog at Broadway/Alma/10th Ave wouldn’t be necessary, and buildings at those intersections wouldn’t need to be expropriated.

By using TBM construction, only the single block-long street where a station has to be dug down to meet the TBM tunnels will be inconvenienced. The north-south streets on either side of station construction will remain open for traffic, and Broadway being a block away won’t need to be blocked with construction.

This can be built in stages:

1. from VCC to stations at Kingsway/Main and Cambie Transit Hub;
2. Extension to stations at Oak, Granville, and Arbutus Transit Hub;
3. Extension to stations at Macdonald and Alma;
4. Extension to stations at Sasamat and UBC Transit Hub.

As SkyTrain is built westward, the connecting B-Line terminus also moves westward to always provide a BRT connection to UBC.

Because the Streetcar line is built on 16th Ave, rather than Broadway or 10th Ave to UBC, there isn’t any wasted money spent on Streetcar tracks that are later ripped up to build Skytrain.


Because these elements can be built independent of the others, and on their own schedule depending on finances, one isn’t dependent on the others for completion. These provide layers of transit between UBC and the rest of Vancouver, and the rest of the Greater Vancouver area.

[aberdeen5698]

By using these UBC Express buses, the 1/3 of riders who are only traveling exclusively between the UBC Transit Hub and a Skytrain Station or Waterfront Station can be separated from the rest of the bus riders who want other stops serviced by local or B-Line buses that are also traveling to or from UBC.
I've been thinking that true, non-stop UBC express buses are a good idea too. It seems to me that the beauty of a true express bus is that it improves service at basically no extra cost. In fact, if it reduces the round-trip time enough then there might even be a chance of freeing up a bus or two to improve frequency on the regular B-Line without adding any additional overall service hours.

[jsbertram]

Translink can easily see how fast an Express can make it between Commercial to UBC; Just capture the GPS readings of an "out of service" bus making that dash. Add a minute or two to allow for passengers exiting and boarding at the beginning and end of the run, and you've got a good estimate of the Express bus running time to UBC.

I'm not sure if they run "out of service" buses on 4th, 41st, 25th, 16th, or Marine during the daytime but if they do, then they have some data they can use to see how much faster the UBC Express buses can operate vs. regular (local) buses and the B-Line buses.

[Mininari]

Considering the heavy volume of skytrain-UBC traffic that floods onto the 99 every day, I am really surprised that they haven't implemented some kind of express service yet... even if its only on peak hours. It would be hugely popular, and free up the 99 for its "other" stops along the way. Y'know, those "other" places people try to get on the packed bus as they whiz by...

[jsbertram]

Considering the heavy volume of skytrain-UBC traffic that floods onto the 99 every day, I am really surprised that they haven't implemented some kind of express service yet... even if its only on peak hours. It would be hugely popular, and free up the 99 for its "other" stops along the way. Y'know, those "other" places people try to get on the packed bus as they whiz by...

I purposely didn't create an "X99" express from Commercial because the previous one was a failure. Primarily because when the bus pulled up, people didn't bother to check the sign to see if it was a 'regular' 99 B-Line or a NonStop UBC B-Line. By the time the NonStop UBC B-Line had passed Clark and Main without stopping there were near-riots from the people whose stops had been skipped, and drivers had to make unscheduled stops & slowing down the service. Now the 'NonStop' bus was delayed even more because people standing at that non-scheduled stop fought to get on the bus before the doors closed.

By having these express buses start from VCC (for E-W Millennium line riders), and Joyce (for Surrey - Waterfront Expo line riders), and Marine (for Richmond - Waterfront Canada line riders), those transfers are done at stations other than Commercial, so people will figure out the right station to use for the bus they want (UBC Express or B-Line), and those express buses are likely to be waiting when the rider arrives at the station.

Who knows how the travel patterns could change? Some people may discover that X84 from VCC isn't packed, so they'll deliberately stop using Joyce & X43 and use Broadway/Commercial to VCC & X84; or skip Marine & X101 in favour of Olympic Village & X84. Someone living downtown may discover the bus to Yaletown then train to Olympic Village & X84 is faster than catching the X44 at Davie/Burrard if the X44 is already packed with WCE and North Shore people heading to UBC.

[SFUVancouver]

There used to be an express Commercial-Broadway Stn to UBC B-Line bus but Translink discontinued it because the regular 99 B-Line was so congested. It was an inefficient use of their limited resources to have often-half empty express B-Lines zip past crowds of people at normal B-Line stops that will be passed up by the full normal B-Lines. Moreover I heard that it generated serious bad blood between the drivers and Coast Mountain Bus Company since the drivers of the normal B-Line would be screamed at by angry people that saw one or two nearly empty express B-Lines sail past while they were passed up by three or four normal B-Lines.

[aberdeen5698]

...I heard that it generated serious bad blood between the drivers and Coast Mountain Bus Company since the drivers of the normal B-Line would be screamed at by angry people that saw one or two nearly empty express B-Lines sail past while they were passed up by three or four normal B-Lines.
That's probably a good argument for having it on a different route such as VCC - Olympic Village - UBC.

[dleung]

I find it very hard to maintain interest in talk of buses, because they lack any sort of permanence and reliability. Part of me thinks they'll get more ridership if they stop changing up the routes every couple months like underwear.

It will also help if they stop playing with the frickin schedules posted at the bus stops. The biggest embarrassment was the money they spent on the fancy new signs, which don't turn, so you have to risk getting hit by traffic to see the 4th side of the box. And to save ink, only the frequencies are provided for certain periods of time... which, while ok for 5-10 minute buses, is completely sadistic for riders of certain routes, who will have no idea whether they just missed it or have to wait half an hour or one hour for the next one.

So yeah, more LRT/subway please.

[jsbertram]

There used to be an express Commercial-Broadway Stn to UBC B-Line bus but Translink discontinued it because the regular 99 B-Line was so congested. It was an inefficient use of their limited resources to have often-half empty express B-Lines zip past crowds of people at normal B-Line stops that will be passed up by the full normal B-Lines. Moreover I heard that it generated serious bad blood between the drivers and Coast Mountain Bus Company since the drivers of the normal B-Line would be screamed at by angry people that saw one or two nearly empty express B-Lines sail past while they were passed up by three or four normal B-Lines.

But the major reason for its failure was it was difficult - impossible even - to easily distinguish between the 'regular' 99 B-Line and the 'Express' 99 B-Line. They even had the similar B-Line name and used the same bus types. If you missed the front sign as the bus arrived, or can't see the side sign from the back-back door, there's no way to know what bus route you're on. When you're running from the train to the bus, you're not gonna spend too much time guessing 'is this the right bus at this stop?'

One way this could have been resolved is to have three loading areas at Commercial: One for '9 UBC' local, one for '99 UBC B-Line', and one for 'xx UBC Express'.

Some people thought 'express' meant it made fewer stops (not realising that the 'regular' 99 B-Line already did that). If the name was changed to something like "UBC NonStop" (dropping the B-Line designation too) with a different number - NS9 - it might have worked, but NS9 is too similar to 9N (the night bus), so there's more confusion.

I can't tell you how many times someone has asked me when the 9N is arriving, and are MAD at me when I say 'not until after midnight' - thinking I'm jerking them around.

By having the UBC Express riders choose the route they want (X101, X43, X84, X44) and separate themselves from the rest of the riders who want (need) to use local or B-Line buses, you can improve bus service for everyone.

[jsbertram]

There used to be an express Commercial-Broadway Stn to UBC B-Line bus but Translink discontinued it because the regular 99 B-Line was so congested. It was an inefficient use of their limited resources to have often-half empty express B-Lines zip past crowds of people at normal B-Line stops that will be passed up by the full normal B-Lines. Moreover I heard that it generated serious bad blood between the drivers and Coast Mountain Bus Company since the drivers of the normal B-Line would be screamed at by angry people that saw one or two nearly empty express B-Lines sail past while they were passed up by three or four normal B-Lines.

I wrote a note to TransLink back then to get the UBC Express from Commercial to run on 12th Ave (via Broadway - Clark - 12th), and if anyone was panicked about being on the wrong bus make an unscheduled stop at clark/broadway to let them off after turning south.

Those people on the wrong bus can exit & walk across broadway to the Clark B-Line stop.

By running the express bus on 12th Ave, everyone on Broadway who is waiting for a B-Line won't see the Express zoom by on 12th, so they won't be P*ssed Off watching what they think is a B-Line bus zoom past them without stopping.

Furthermore, there are no bus stops on 12th so there's nobody waiting there who would be be P*ssed Off watching a bus zoom past them without stopping.

[BCPhil]

Sorry, I don't believe in express buses. What makes a student with a Upass holier than someone trying to get to work on time at Broadway and Arbutus? It's a fragmentation of the system and basically creating a caste system where one persons time is more valued than someone else's.

Unless the buses ONLY left 110% full from Commercial (and I mean no space left for people to even stand), an express service is a waste of resources as it might pass by people waiting for overfull buses they can't get on (which is what happened to the express trial). Unless students want to fork over an extra premium just for an express ticket (like a WCE ticket) it's completely unfair to everyone else.

[lezard]

Sorry, I don't believe in express buses. What makes a student with a Upass holier than someone trying to get to work on time at Broadway and Arbutus? It's a fragmentation of the system and basically creating a caste system where one persons time is more valued than someone else's.

Unless the buses ONLY left 110% full from Commercial (and I mean no space left for people to even stand), an express service is a waste of resources as it might pass by people waiting for overfull buses they can't get on (which is what happened to the express trial). Unless students want to fork over an extra premium just for an express ticket (like a WCE ticket) it's completely unfair to everyone else.

Then we shouldn't be considering up to 3 billion for LRT or a Skytrain to UBC, just a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere on the system.

The logic behind any express service to UBC is to take pressure off the rest of the transit system. By returning spare capacity to omnibus and fast busses, it makes commuting by other transit users easier and raises fare revenue on those lines.

One of the main goals of the Broadway corridor transit line is to create an express service to UBC. Possibly half the projected ridership of the UBC line would be UBC students, faculty and staff.

Question: how much is the Translink subsidy for the U-Pass?

[BCPhil]

Then we shouldn't be considering up to 3 billion for LRT or a Skytrain to UBC, just a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere on the system.

The logic behind any express service to UBC is to take pressure off the rest of the transit system. By returning spare capacity to omnibus and fast busses, it makes commuting by other transit users easier and raises fare revenue on those lines.

One of the main goals of the Broadway corridor transit line is to create an express service to UBC. Possibly half the projected ridership of the UBC line would be UBC students, faculty and staff.

Question: how much is the Translink subsidy for the U-Pass?

Skytrain to UBC won't just stop at UBC, it stops at all the stations in between. Everyone that gets on at Commercial will see a time savings vs taking the B-Line, not just a select few if it were an express.

An express bus service on a heavily used corridor where people are passed by at stops by full buses is a waste of resources. Very few bline express buses would leave commercial at absolute maximum capacity, meaning empty seats would pass by people waiting for seats at other stops. It's a waste of buses so a select few can save on average 5 minutes.

Could you imagine waiting for a Canada Line train for 4 minutes at Broadway only to have a half full train blow through the station on an express run to the airport? Then wait another 4 minutes for the train that will stop for you?

It's clear there are a lot of current/former UBC students, but UBC isn't the be all end all of the Broadway corridor, there are other destinations and travelers there too (that pay a lot more per month for transit than a student).



Using limited resources to cater to a subset of travelers in an area where there are not enough buses to begin with is not the best use of those resources. It's the same argument used against having the suburban buses enter downtown. It's a much better use of resources to have them terminate at Bridgeport instead of having redundant travel methods compete with each other.

[trofirhen]

The dialectic here seems like an argument between an all-or-nothing situation. Some form of compromise that will take the pressure off the main bus system (...while skytrain is being built ...) and provide a faster, more convenient service to UBC must be possible if we put our heads to it. Surely. Nevertheless, I'll leave that up to the transit users back home, and to the planners and "experts."

[twoNeurons]

I also don't see the logic in providing direct service to UBC.

The only reason someone introduces direct service is because it will attract more riders who care about time savings.

Heathrow Express, Gatwick Express, West Coast Express ( from Port Moody ), Nozomi Shinkansen (Tokyo - Osaka with a couple of stops )...

These are all premium services with a riders that are willing to pay the premium price.

Unless a bus is travelling on a freeway, it doesn't need to be non-stop.

I don't see how a non-stop would free up resources to be used elsewhere.

One of the main goals is NOT to create an express to UBC. One of the main goals is to create a service that can efficiently get riders to destinations along the Broadway corridor, of which UBC is one of them.

If it were viable, I could see a UBC Express making fewer stops... perhaps the 84 could be re-branded and only stop at Main, The Canada Line, VGH, Arbutus and UBC.

But a Non-stop from Commercial just doesn't make sense to me. If they were to charge an extra $2 for non-stop how many would ride it? Even an extra $1 and it would have no riders. The 99 is more efficient maximizing ridership.

[lezard]

Skytrain to UBC won't just stop at UBC, it stops at all the stations in between. Everyone that gets on at Commercial will see a time savings vs taking the B-Line, not just a select few if it were an express.

An express bus service on a heavily used corridor where people are passed by at stops by full buses is a waste of resources. Very few bline express buses would leave commercial at absolute maximum capacity, meaning empty seats would pass by people waiting for seats at other stops. It's a waste of buses so a select few can save on average 5 minutes.

Could you imagine waiting for a Canada Line train for 4 minutes at Broadway only to have a half full train blow through the station on an express run to the airport? Then wait another 4 minutes for the train that will stop for you?

It's clear there are a lot of current/former UBC students, but UBC isn't the be all end all of the Broadway corridor, there are other destinations and travelers there too (that pay a lot more per month for transit than a student).



Using limited resources to cater to a subset of travelers in an area where there are not enough buses to begin with is not the best use of those resources. It's the same argument used against having the suburban buses enter downtown. It's a much better use of resources to have them terminate at Bridgeport instead of having redundant travel methods compete with each other.

You will have to show why passing people by at a stop is a waste of resources. The 99 passes people by every day at those stops where it is not scheduled to stop. Is the 99 a waste of resources?

It makes perfect sense to me to run a service over a long distance that would only have a few stops in between to channel the commute transit users, who come from outside of that route and are heading to the route terminal, away from the services that stop frequently and service the transit users that are traveling within the route.

The purpose is not only to save time on the express service but free capacity on the slow services that would otherwise be clogged over the whole length of the route by the long distance commuter.

And, yes I can easily imagine seeing an express Canada Line pass me by while I wait for the scheduled regular service. I don't understand why it appears so strange to you. Layered services are a logical use of transit resources. If you feel it is unfair that you can't get on the B-Line at say Trutch, that's your problem.


Express service and omnibus service are not redundant, they cater to two different transit users. Short trip and long trip or commute. Translink does nothing but cater to subsets of travelers and allocate resources accordingly.

9 and 99 are examples of this. One nominally caters to short trip users whilst the other is meant to serve the UBC commute mainly. The fact that some transit users make use of the 9 or 99 indifferently does not change the fact that they both target different transit user subsets. They are not redundant even though they run on the same route.

You haven't answered my question about the Translink subsidy for the U-Pass yet.

[lezard]

I also don't see the logic in providing direct service to UBC.

The only reason someone introduces direct service is because it will attract more riders who care about time savings.

Heathrow Express, Gatwick Express, West Coast Express ( from Port Moody ), Nozomi Shinkansen (Tokyo - Osaka with a couple of stops )...

These are all premium services with a riders that are willing to pay the premium price.

Unless a bus is travelling on a freeway, it doesn't need to be non-stop.

I don't see how a non-stop would free up resources to be used elsewhere.

One of the main goals is NOT to create an express to UBC. One of the main goals is to create a service that can efficiently get riders to destinations along the Broadway corridor, of which UBC is one of them.

If it were viable, I could see a UBC Express making fewer stops... perhaps the 84 could be re-branded and only stop at Main, The Canada Line, VGH, Arbutus and UBC.

But a Non-stop from Commercial just doesn't make sense to me. If they were to charge an extra $2 for non-stop how many would ride it? Even an extra $1 and it would have no riders. The 99 is more efficient maximizing ridership.

Where did get the idea that transit providers only introduce direct service to attract new users? Many non stop lines in Europe are not premium, and cost the same as the regular fare.

Again, layered transit caters to the many different types of transit users.

Express service to UBC is one of the main goals of the UBC line. You say so yourself in your retort.

And finally you say that a UBC Express could make sense with maybe 4 stops. You do see the logic in providing express service.

[CLC]

i pretty sure the "99 Express" (Nonstop) got cancelled was because it resulted in lots of almost empty or semi-empty buses at times. It also caused much chaos at the Commerical-Broadway station lineups in the morning.

[aberdeen5698]

The only reason someone introduces direct service is because it will attract more riders who care about time savings.

If, say, 25% of the people who take the existing B line bus get on at Commercial and off at UBC, then you could take 1/4 of the buses and run them direct and save the time and gas required to make those extra stops. For those 25% of the people the stops are a complete waste.

The reason to do it isn't to attract riders or to give people preferential treatment, it's to try to use the buses you have in as efficient a manner as possible.

[CLC]

The reason to do it isn't to attract riders or to give people preferential treatment, it's to try to use the buses you have in as efficient a manner as possible.

The previous 99 Express (Nonstop) experiment was inefficient use of resource as it evidently resulted in many semi-empty buses. Translink had a fixed schedule for 99 Express, that was very difficult to match the collective behaviors of when students arrive or leave (and each weekday is different as well, apparently Wednesday was always most busy), buses could be either packed full or relatively empty.

[Zassk]

I think the argument for an express UBC bus was that it could be routed down any other east-west route other than Broadway, thus freeing up some road capacity on Broadway for the benefit of the rest of the transit riders. The UBC travellers don't need to spend their entire ride on Broadway.

[cornholio]

If, say, 25% of the people who take the existing B line bus get on at Commercial and off at UBC, then you could take 1/4 of the buses and run them direct and save the time and gas required to make those extra stops. For those 25% of the people the stops are a complete waste.

The reason to do it isn't to attract riders or to give people preferential treatment, it's to try to use the buses you have in as efficient a manner as possible.

It would get even more complicated. If one out of 4 buses went directly to UBC then that would mean a frequency of 8min-16min. But the bus would only shave 5 or so min of the trip, that means it would only be worth it to take it if you arrived in less then 5 minuets from the bus departing.

This would then result in theoretically around 50%-75% of the direct to UBC riders being able to make the trip as fast or faster on the regular 99 b-line.

This then has the obvious result of having these express buses being up to 50% to 75% under used assuming all the passengers take the fastest option(which is what this express bus would be trying to do). Obviously this is EXACTLY what happened before, no surprise there.

It aint rocket science and im a bit surprised someone at translink made a actual attempt to do this before...and waste money. Lets no do it again because it is guaranteed to be a inefficient use of resources as the buses will NOT be used to capacity as they are now.

[jsbertram]

i pretty sure the "99 Express" (Nonstop) got cancelled was because it resulted in lots of almost empty or semi-empty buses at times. It also caused much chaos at the Commerical-Broadway station lineups in the morning.

What I noticed was there was hardly any distinction between the 99 B-Line UBC, and the 99 B-Line UBC Express which caused unnecessary confusion for the riders. This was compounded by both flavours of B-Line using the same loading zone, so most of the sheeple would just join the lineup & jump on whatever bus pulled up.

For many people the 99 B-Line UBC was already an 'express' because it skipped most of the local 9-Alma/UBC stops, so they didn't understand the difference between the B-Line UBC and the B-Line UBC Express.

However, if someone got on the 99 B-Line UBC Express, there was PANIC when it zoomed past Clark, with people madly yanking the cord & yelling to get out at Clark for Vancouver Community College. Same thing would repeat at Main St, so the driver would have to revert from being a nonstop to a normal 99-B-Line. Just try and prevent someone from getting on what they thought was 'their' B-Line bus that was only dropping off riders who were on the wrong bus.

And there were other riders who were expecting a nonstop run to UBC only to discover they were on a regular B-Line to UBC.

This could have been easily solved by having a 9-Alma/UBC stop and a 99 B-Line UBC loading zone (as they exist right now) and add a new 999 UBC NonStop loading zone further east on Broadway. By having three different loading zones, the riders decide ahead of time which bus they want to use on Broadway (local, B-Line or NonStop).

Some people may make the MadDash to board a different bus when it arrives, but the smart commuter would have already figured out that means more room on their bus when it arrives. I'd wait a few minutes for the NonStop bus to arrive if it means I get to UBC 5 minutes ahead of the B-Line or 20 minutes ahead of the Local.

If the UBC NonStop can use 12th Ave, and turn south at Broadway/Clark to get to 12th Ave, there can be an nonscheduled 'Panic Stop' just after turning south so people who thought they were on a 'normal' B-Line can get off there, and walk across Broadway to the Clark B-Line stop.

[CLC]

What I noticed was there was hardly any distinction between the 99 B-Line UBC, and the 99 B-Line UBC Express which caused unnecessary confusion for the riders. This was compounded by both flavours of B-Line using the same loading zone, so most of the sheeple would just join the lineup & jump on whatever bus pulled up.

The situation was made worse by Translink busstops setup as follows:


Commerical Skytrain
Entrance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99............................9(non-peak hour)............................... 9 (peak hour)
wait here...................or 99 Express (morning peak only)..........wait here

As a result, some people who did not pay attention boarded 99 Express when they intended to take #9!

[jsbertram]

i pretty sure the "99 Express" (Nonstop) got cancelled was because it resulted in lots of almost empty or semi-empty buses at times. It also caused much chaos at the Commerical-Broadway station lineups in the morning.

Following up on my post 3542, that confusion at Commercial can be alleviated by having the UBC-bound commuters siphoned off at Millennium Line VCC Station (using the X84), Expo/ Millennium Line Joyce Station (using the X43) and Canada Line Marine Dr Station (using the X101). Now the remaining riders on the SkyTrain that get out at Commercial /Broadway or Cambie/Broadway are doing so to transfer to the local bus routes, or to the B-Line for a faster run to a major stop on Broadway.

I have done the ‘local-express’ on Broadway trick so many times it’s a routine I don’t even think about – jump on the next 9-Broadway local to the nearest B-Line stop (sometimes in the reverse direction), to get the B-Line to Commercial & get to the RIO for a flick. I used to check when the 99-B-Line passed the 9-Broadway I had used to start the trip, but I found that occurred between Oak and Main, and then it passed several other ‘earlier’ 9-Broadway buses before arriving at Commercial.

[jsbertram]

The situation was made worse by Translink busstops setup as follows:


Commerical Skytrain
Entrance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99............................9(non-peak hour)............................... 9 (peak hour)
wait here...................or 99 Express (morning peak only)..........wait here

As a result, some people who did not pay attention boarded 99 Express when they intended to take #9!

If you can't tell the difference between an electric trolley and a diesel bendy-bus when you get on board, you have other problems that can't be solved by Translink.

[CLC]

If you can't tell the difference between an electric trolley and a diesel bendy-bus when you get on board, you have other problems that can't be solved by Translink.

^ Actually 9 is not always served by electric trolley (at least back then in 2007-2008?), and if I remember correct "99 Express" did not always use articulated bus. So sometimes they used same type of bus!

And always there are people who go to medical appointment occasionally (to Central Broadway) will get confused which bus to take.

[cornholio]

If you can't tell the difference between an electric trolley and a diesel bendy-bus when you get on board, you have other problems that can't be solved by Translink.

good thing to read for some basic information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology

This applies to you also, its sometimes easy to "not see" obvious differences, we all do it every day. When you play the numbers game and take 60,000 or so boardings a day you will always get plenty of people who board the wrong bus.

When you design something you always have to take in to account how "people" work, especially large numbers of people. People WILL board the wrong buses, the trick is to minimize the number of wrong boardings.

Every time we make a decision we play the numbers game, maximize the odds of making the right decision while minimizing the amount of energy and thought required to make it. This means we will sometimes lose, or in other words someone will always lose making a specific decision. Back to the 60,000 people, lots will make the wrong decision and board the wrong bus, just like you sometimes make the wrong decisions(ones where you cant understand how you even made them because their so obviously stupid)

[NucksFanInVan]

You will have to show why passing people by at a stop is a waste of resources. The 99 passes people by every day at those stops where it is not scheduled to stop. Is the 99 a waste of resources?



OK, it's such an easy challenge that I have to pick up that gauntlet.

"Layered" service _can_ provide a better option ... but only where the individual services are (a) not resource-limited and (b) the "layering" provides significant time savings.

In this case, the resources _are_ limited. Let's assume, for simplicity, that Translink has a fixed number of buses. Now we can assume that adding an express bus would mean taking out a BLine. So the question becomes: how do you move the most people to their destination with fixed resources?

In systems where "layering" works well, "long-distance" commuters will wait through several "local service" departures to catch the express and still get to their destination faster. But the time savings of express over B Line are minimal. People destined for Broadway station will NOT pass up a normal BLine to wait for the next express.

On the other hand, people destined for points west of Broadway station won't get on an express bus because they can't get off at their stop. They will have to wait for the next B Line.

So, BLines carry both "long-distance" and "local" passengers. Express busses carry only "long-distance" passengers.

Let's say for argument sake the long-distance/local split is 50/50 and you have 10 articulated busses to serve the route.

If each bus could do five B-Line runs (Bway Stn return) in eight hours at 100% capacity, or six express runs (Bway Stn return) at 50% capacity, what combination of BLine and express busses moves the most people? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 5 x 1.00 > 6 x 0.50.

10 x 5 x 1.00 = 50 busloads
9 x 5 x 1.00 + 1 x 6 x 0.5 = 48 busloads
...
10 x 6 x 0.5 = 30 busloads

Pretty much QED I think.

[NucksFanInVan]

:previous:
Sorry: one point so obvious I forgot to write it in.

The B Line passes people up at its own stops so by definition it is operating at or near capacity (demand being greater than supply) and is not a waste of resources.

[dubsH]

:previous:
Sorry: one point so obvious I forgot to write it in.

The B Line passes people up at its own stops so by definition it is operating at or near capacity (demand being greater than supply) and is not a waste of resources.

I think lezard posed a rhetorical question...

But the time savings of express over B Line are minimal. People destined for Broadway station will NOT pass up a normal BLine to wait for the next express.

While I don't think re-introducing express buses to UBC is the best option at the moment, your argument right there is flawed. In the evening, I see as many 9 buses as much as the 99 (if not sometimes more, when the 99 runs every 10-15 min), but I would never take the 9 over the "express-like" 99 to get to my destination, no matter how many times more frequent it runs (and this is because the 9 stops at nearly every single stop). If the journey is short (say to City Hall station), then it may not matter whether it is the 9 or the 99, but if someone is traversing down all 10km of W Broadway to UBC, then there is a major difference.

[lezard]

OK, it's such an easy challenge that I have to pick up that gauntlet.

"Layered" service _can_ provide a better option ... but only where the individual services are (a) not resource-limited and (b) the "layering" provides significant time savings.

In this case, the resources _are_ limited. Let's assume, for simplicity, that Translink has a fixed number of buses. Now we can assume that adding an express bus would mean taking out a BLine. So the question becomes: how do you move the most people to their destination with fixed resources?

In systems where "layering" works well, "long-distance" commuters will wait through several "local service" departures to catch the express and still get to their destination faster. But the time savings of express over B Line are minimal. People destined for Broadway station will NOT pass up a normal BLine to wait for the next express.

On the other hand, people destined for points west of Broadway station won't get on an express bus because they can't get off at their stop. They will have to wait for the next B Line.

So, BLines carry both "long-distance" and "local" passengers. Express busses carry only "long-distance" passengers.

Let's say for argument sake the long-distance/local split is 50/50 and you have 10 articulated busses to serve the route.

If each bus could do five B-Line runs (Bway Stn return) in eight hours at 100% capacity, or six express runs (Bway Stn return) at 50% capacity, what combination of BLine and express busses moves the most people? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 5 x 1.00 > 6 x 0.50.

10 x 5 x 1.00 = 50 busloads
9 x 5 x 1.00 + 1 x 6 x 0.5 = 48 busloads
...
10 x 6 x 0.5 = 30 busloads

Pretty much QED I think.

So QED, the B-Line is a waste of resources? Not sure what point you are trying to make.

[jsbertram]

I think lezard posed a rhetorical question...



While I don't think re-introducing express buses to UBC is the best option at the moment, your argument right there is flawed. In the evening, I see as many 9 buses as much as the 99 (if not sometimes more, when the 99 runs every 10-15 min), but I would never take the 9 over the "express-like" 99 to get to my destination, no matter how many times more frequent it runs (and this is because the 9 stops at nearly every single stop). If the journey is short (say to City Hall station), then it may not matter whether it is the 9 or the 99, but if someone is traversing down all 10km of W Broadway to UBC, then there is a major difference.

If the 99 B-Line you're on gets to your destination while passing all the 9 local buses you didn't take before the 99 B-Line showed up, you've actually saved time by waiting for the 99 B-Line instead of taking the first 9 local that came along.

If the 99 B-Line also passes 'earlier' 9 Local buses before getting to your destination, you have actually saved more traveling time by not having to catch any of those earlier 9 local buses.

[lezard]

Here's the cheap solution for Skytrain to UBC. All home owners along the corridor should do as this enterprising Russian pensioner.

http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010/05/24/the-most-unusual-metro-in-the-world/

[cabotp]

I think lezard posed a rhetorical question...



While I don't think re-introducing express buses to UBC is the best option at the moment, your argument right there is flawed. In the evening, I see as many 9 buses as much as the 99 (if not sometimes more, when the 99 runs every 10-15 min), but I would never take the 9 over the "express-like" 99 to get to my destination, no matter how many times more frequent it runs (and this is because the 9 stops at nearly every single stop). If the journey is short (say to City Hall station), then it may not matter whether it is the 9 or the 99, but if someone is traversing down all 10km of W Broadway to UBC, then there is a major difference.

Tell me about it. Last Monday I happened to be at Granville and Broadway. Walking up to the Eastbound bus stop. To catch the 99 to Cambie. I check my cell to see that the 99 won't be there for another 5 minutes. But just as I stop at the bus stop I turn to see the #9. Well I did a quick debate and figured I should just take this as it will probably get me there a bit faster. Ya right. Just as we pass Oak. The 99 blows past us :(.

[trofirhen]

:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
Just think .... if that had happened 20 years in the future ..... it wouldn't have happened. You would (probably) have had skyrain rrt to whisk you quickly westward.
Or, if certain parties have their way, a quaint lrt with a "ding-ding" ..... or maybe a "fweeeeeeeeep" punctuated once or twice a month by the sound of a car horn, the crunching and tearing of metal, and screams of "oh my god! .........."

[jsbertram]

OK, it's such an easy challenge that I have to pick up that gauntlet.

"Layered" service _can_ provide a better option ... but only where the individual services are (a) not resource-limited and (b) the "layering" provides significant time savings.

In this case, the resources _are_ limited. Let's assume, for simplicity, that Translink has a fixed number of buses. Now we can assume that adding an express bus would mean taking out a BLine. So the question becomes: how do you move the most people to their destination with fixed resources?

In systems where "layering" works well, "long-distance" commuters will wait through several "local service" departures to catch the express and still get to their destination faster. But the time savings of express over B Line are minimal. People destined for Broadway station will NOT pass up a normal BLine to wait for the next express.

On the other hand, people destined for points west of Broadway station won't get on an express bus because they can't get off at their stop. They will have to wait for the next B Line.

So, BLines carry both "long-distance" and "local" passengers. Express busses carry only "long-distance" passengers.

Let's say for argument sake the long-distance/local split is 50/50 and you have 10 articulated busses to serve the route.

If each bus could do five B-Line runs (Bway Stn return) in eight hours at 100% capacity, or six express runs (Bway Stn return) at 50% capacity, what combination of BLine and express busses moves the most people? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 5 x 1.00 > 6 x 0.50.

10 x 5 x 1.00 = 50 busloads
9 x 5 x 1.00 + 1 x 6 x 0.5 = 48 busloads
...
10 x 6 x 0.5 = 30 busloads

Pretty much QED I think.

Following your logic, Air Canada should NOT be flying direct non-stop flights between Vancouver and Toronto using expensive planes that aren't always full, but instead should use their limited number of expensive airplanes to make flights from Vancouver to Toronto (and back) with stops in Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg. Since the passengers traveling between Vancouver and Toronto get there eventually, they shouldn't complain about all the extra stops en route.

You can never find a Rocket Scientist when you need one .....

[jsbertram]

:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
Just think .... if that had happened 20 years in the future ..... it wouldn't have happened. You would (probably) have had skyrain rrt to whisk you quickly westward.
Or, if certain parties have their way, a quaint lrt with a "ding-ding" ..... or maybe a "fweeeeeeeeep" punctuated once or twice a month by the sound of a car horn, the crunching and tearing of metal, and screams of "oh my god! .........."

I think you pressed [Submit Reply] before finishing your last sentence, so let me finish it for you.

and screams of "Oh my God, they killed Kenny! ...You bastards!"

[punface]

Article in The Province titled "SkyTrain Alternatives Pondered": http://www.theprovince.com/SkyTrain+alternatives+pondered/3076653/story.html

Features our friends Mel Lehan and the BARSTA.

[WarrenC12]

Excuse my rant...

You know, I have to say, I'm really tired of these idiots. I know it's been said a million times by people in this forum. But the HST campaign is showing us something: if you want action, organize and get it done.

With Translink's limited budget, why don't they go to corridors that want transit? Screw the west side. It's Skytrain or nothing for them. If they don't want it, lets build transit (skytrain or otherwise) for communities that do.

Until UBC students or some other group steps up to "out-protest" these NIMBY pie-in-the-sky morons, who cares. It's more trouble than it's worth at this point. :shrug:

[mezzanine]

I liked this quote especially:

Booth said most residents prefer surface light-rail, whether it's a streetcar, tram or electric trolley line.


Assuming that 'electric trolley line' doesn't mean existing trolley buses, he seems to be implying choice, but he is really insisting on local service tram. he isn't even mentioning limited stop surface LRT (like TO's transit city)....:sly:

[jsbertram]

Tell me about it. Last Monday I happened to be at Granville and Broadway. Walking up to the Eastbound bus stop. To catch the 99 to Cambie. I check my cell to see that the 99 won't be there for another 5 minutes. But just as I stop at the bus stop I turn to see the #9. Well I did a quick debate and figured I should just take this as it will probably get me there a bit faster. Ya right. Just as we pass Oak. The 99 blows past us :(.

And to add salt to the wound, the 9 eastbound stop is at the OTHER end of the block, so you have to backtrack most of the block to get to the C-Line station.

[NucksFanInVan]

Following your logic, Air Canada should NOT be flying direct non-stop flights between Vancouver and Toronto using expensive planes that aren't always full, but instead should use their limited number of expensive airplanes to make flights from Vancouver to Toronto (and back) with stops in Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg. Since the passengers traveling between Vancouver and Toronto get there eventually, they shouldn't complain about all the extra stops en route.

You can never find a Rocket Scientist when you need one .....

Wow, people around here are excellent at missing the point. Easy to insult someone when you only look at half their argument...

IF the non-stop YVR-YYZ planes were flying half-full (supply > demand); and

IF people at YYC, YQR and YWG were being passed up regularly (demand > supply); and

IF the imbalance was such that on the whole the AC load factors would be much higher flying YVR-YYC/YQR/YWG-YYZ

then YES of course they should re-task their equipment. Why do you think the US airlines adopted the "hub" system? People complain about route inefficiency all the time. It's not like people ENJOY flying from Seattle to Detroit via Phoenix! (Obviously they wouldn't need to stop three times on the same flight to fill the plane).

Of course you have conveniently ignored the second half of the argument. Where there are SIGNIFICANT time savings to an express route, people will have a definite preference for the express service, will make a mutually exclusive decision to pursue this service, and may even be willing to pay more for the priviledge.

Enough people make an exclusive choice for non-stop YVR-YYZ flights that the service is supported (I made that decision this weekend). Or put another way, people would go out of their way to avoid the milk run. This is why the 99 BLine carries so many more people than the 9.

But we're not comparing the 9 and 99, that's a no-brainer. We're comparing the 99 and 99X. Nobody at UBC ever said "Oh man, I gotta wait 15 minutes for the next 99X non-stop express bus to commericial, the extra five minutes I'll spend on the B Line will be unbearable and I'll want to blow my brains out".

[cornholio]

Following your logic, Air Canada should NOT be flying direct non-stop flights between Vancouver and Toronto using expensive planes that aren't always full, but instead should use their limited number of expensive airplanes to make flights from Vancouver to Toronto (and back) with stops in Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg. Since the passengers traveling between Vancouver and Toronto get there eventually, they shouldn't complain about all the extra stops en route.

You can never find a Rocket Scientist when you need one .....

I think you missed the whole point, lets brain storm.

Better yet let me simplify it.

Assuming frequency is based on riders, say 25% of the trips are direct to UBC then 25% of the buses will be direct to UBC express buses.

IF 99 frequency < express 99 frequency - time savings
THEN the express 99 is not the fastest option for all targeted users AND is therefore not a efficient use of resources




So if 25% of the users go directly to UBC and the frequency is then one express bus every 20 min then the frequency of the regular bus is then one bus every 5 min. You would then need a time saving of 15min or greater to make the express bus service viable and a efficient use of resources. That is unless there is a premium payment for the service that covers the inefficient use of resources. Premium fares dont generally exist to gouge customers, they usually exist to cover the extra costs of providing the premium service.

Edit: looks like Nucks Fan above explained the simple concept better then me, I think. hehe

[tybuilding]

Skytrain lobby is at it again, this time building a skytrain in Phoenix

PHX Sky Train™
Studies show that automated trains are the most efficient way to move people through airports. The PHX Sky Train™ may potentially result in more than 20,000 fewer vehicles per day at the Airport - nearly 20 percent of a day's traffic - and significantly reduce curb congestion and pollution.

Stage One of the PHX Sky Train will transport Airport visitors and employees between METRO light rail, east economy parking and Terminal 4, which serves 80 percent of Sky Harbor’s passengers. Construction will be complete in early 2013. Stage Two, which will continue through the Airport all the way to the Rental Car Center, will be up and running in 2020.

A new gateway to Sky Harbor will be created at 44th Street and Washington. This station is just a short walk in an air conditioned pedestrian walkway from the 44th Street METRO light rail stop. The elevated train will help relieve traffic jams, reduce wait times, provide hassle-free travel in climate controlled vehicles and connect to the Valley’s light rail and bus systems. Equally important, the PHX Sky Train™ will accommodate our region’s future growth and be a welcomed addition to Sky Harbor’s renowned customer service.

The PHX Sky Train™, free to the public, will run 24-hours with predictable travel times—arriving at stations about every three minutes during peak periods and delivering passengers to their destinations within about five minutes of boarding.

http://skyharbor.com/about-sky-harbor/automated-train.html

[jsbertram]

Skytrain lobby is at it again, this time building a skytrain in Phoenix

PHX Sky Train™
Studies show that automated trains are the most efficient way to move people through airports. The PHX Sky Train™ may potentially result in more than 20,000 fewer vehicles per day at the Airport - nearly 20 percent of a day's traffic - and significantly reduce curb congestion and pollution.

Stage One of the PHX Sky Train will transport Airport visitors and employees between METRO light rail, east economy parking and Terminal 4, which serves 80 percent of Sky Harbor’s passengers. Construction will be complete in early 2013. Stage Two, which will continue through the Airport all the way to the Rental Car Center, will be up and running in 2020.

A new gateway to Sky Harbor will be created at 44th Street and Washington. This station is just a short walk in an air conditioned pedestrian walkway from the 44th Street METRO light rail stop. The elevated train will help relieve traffic jams, reduce wait times, provide hassle-free travel in climate controlled vehicles and connect to the Valley’s light rail and bus systems. Equally important, the PHX Sky Train™ will accommodate our region’s future growth and be a welcomed addition to Sky Harbor’s renowned customer service.

The PHX Sky Train™, free to the public, will run 24-hours with predictable travel times—arriving at stations about every three minutes during peak periods and delivering passengers to their destinations within about five minutes of boarding.

http://skyharbor.com/about-sky-harbor/automated-train.html

Even though they call it "PHX Sky Train" (and its trademarked), its not the same as Vancouvers SkyTrain - you'll notice they will spell theirs "PHX Sky Train" to avoid confusion.

Also, that looks similar to the People Mover at Dallas-Forth Worth airport, which is a different technology from the SkyTrain LIM used in Vancouver.

I guess there is another "PHX Sky Train" lobby for Zwei to worry about.

London Heathrow's new Terminal 5 has another type of People Mover between the terminal and parking lot that has just started operation. I've heard that if its successful, it will be expanded to be the People Mover between all the Heathrow terminals and the airport parking lots, and also connect to the nearby train stations.
http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EOur+business+and+community%5EHeathrow%27s+pod/c49af1d6d04b4210VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/

[aberdeen5698]

Article in The Province titled "SkyTrain Alternatives Pondered": http://www.theprovince.com/SkyTrain+alternatives+pondered/3076653/story.html

Features our friends Mel Lehan and the BARSTA.

Quote from the article:
Greg Booth of the Upper Kitsilano Residents Association said locals are worried about high passenger volumes going through their neighbourhood. "We think there needs to be some compromises between protecting local neighbourhoods and businesses, and getting people from A to B."

Booth said most residents prefer surface light-rail, whether it's a streetcar, tram or electric trolley line.

That's completely silly. The impact of "high passenger volumes going through your neighborhood" is far, far less with an underground RT line than with the same volume of people at grade level. What are these guys thinking?

[jsbertram]

Someone should invite Mel for coffee at the Starbucks patio on Davie/Mainland for a few hours in the afternoon rush so he can see for himself how the new Canada Line has 'ruined' that neighborhood.

While he's sitting there he can ponder just how much better the area would be with a tram /streetcar /lrt rolling by on Davie every 3 or 4 minutes carrying commuters who only want to get from their jobs downtown to their home in Richmond or Oakridge.

And he may also ponder how many of those commuters care that a new store in yaletown has opened, or a store is having a sale this week.

[trofirhen]

I think you pressed [Submit Reply] before finishing your last sentence, so let me finish it for you.

and screams of "Oh my God, they killed Kenny! ...You bastards!"

:) :haha: :jester:

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Quote from the article:



Hence Frances Bula's suggestion of naming the streetcar (if chosen unfortunately) as the Creme de la Creme Line.

Better yet, they should erect fences lined with douglas firs around all shopping districts along Broadway (with security guard stations on every block) so that unwanted elements are completely blocked out of sight and presence.

[NucksFanInVan]

Quote from the article:


That's completely silly. The impact of "high passenger volumes going through your neighborhood" is far, far less with an underground RT line than with the same volume of people at grade level. What are these guys thinking?

I'm confused... are they concerned that "high passenger volumes" WILL be going through their neighbourhood (and somehow "spoiling" it)? Or that they WON'T be going through their neighbourhood (and missing the businesses)?

You've got to respect a lobby that can simultaneously present two opposing but equally nonsensical arguments with a straight face...

[cabotp]

And to add salt to the wound, the 9 eastbound stop is at the OTHER end of the block, so you have to backtrack most of the block to get to the C-Line station.

Yup :(, The only saving grace for me is that I do walk very fast. So the extra distance only added a few seconds.

[CLC]

Article in The Province titled "SkyTrain Alternatives Pondered": http://www.theprovince.com/SkyTrain+alternatives+pondered/3076653/story.html

Features our friends Mel Lehan and the BARSTA.

They are going to organize a "community meeting" with the following speakers

Peter Boothroyd, UBC professor emeritus in development planning
Patrick Condon, senior researcher at the UBC Design Centre for Sustainability
Greg Booth, Upper Kitsilano Residents Association
Donna Dobo, West Broadway Business Association

---------------------------------------------------
Guess it will be a one-sided brainwashing event. What is more disgusting is I noticed Donna Dobo left a message in Zwei blog post "LRT FAQ" (so it is likely that Zwei FAQ series will be distributed in the meeting)

[officedweller]

I'm confused... are they concerned that "high passenger volumes" WILL be going through their neighbourhood (and somehow "spoiling" it)? Or that they WON'T be going through their neighbourhood (and missing the businesses)?

You've got to respect a lobby that can simultaneously present two opposing but equally nonsensical arguments with a straight face...

It's the standard "we don't like commuters passing through our community and we refuse to accommodate them" argument.
The same arguments were raised in South Granville when the 98 B-Line was introduced.
Did the 98 B-Line ever get dedicated HOV lanes on Granville? I don't think so.
Oddly, though, the West Broadway solution (use lanes for trams) is akin to what the South Granville businesses were opposing (using lanes for 98 B-Line).

[jsbertram]

It's the standard "we don't like commuters passing through our community and we refuse to accommodate them" argument.
The same arguments were raised in South Granville when the 98 B-Line was introduced.
Did the 98 B-Line ever get dedicated HOV lanes on Granville? I don't think so.
Oddly, though, the West Broadway solution (use lanes for trams) is akin to what the South Granville businesses were opposing (using lanes for 98 B-Line).

But the businesses on Granville quickly found out that 'those commuters' that they hated so much were also their local residents using the 98 B-Line to get downtown and back home.

When the 98 B-Line was discontinued to make 'those commuters' use Canada Line instead, the Granville businesses found out that a lot of the 15,000 people using the 98 B-Line every day were local residents who stopped using Granville in favour of Canada Line to get downtown. (most had no choice). With the local residents NOT using their usual commuter stops on Granville, businesses that relied on the people getting their JavaJolt & muffin on the way to their B-Line stop, or getting some groceries on the way home from work saw their revenues fall in double-digit percentages.

For me, the most surprising business failure was "Big News" at Granville/Broadway closing shortly after the 98 B-Line was discontinued. Having Starbucks & Blenz at other bus-stops nearby was added pressure to compete with the big boys, but they managed to do so for many years while the 98 B-Line was running.

[jsbertram]

Article in The Province titled "SkyTrain Alternatives Pondered": http://www.theprovince.com/SkyTrain+alternatives+pondered/3076653/story.html

Features our friends Mel Lehan and the BARSTA.

Funny how there isn't a comments area for the story.

[racc]

Quote from the article:


That's completely silly. The impact of "high passenger volumes going through your neighborhood" is far, far less with an underground RT line than with the same volume of people at grade level. What are these guys thinking?

I'm sure not all of them feel like Mary (assuming that this is a serious post, not some kind of joke), it is not necessarily the volume of people that is the issue.
http://www.westender.com/articles/entry/news-city-mulls-future-of-rapid-transit-line-on-broadway/#comment-7421

Mel Lehan is a great visionary man, working relentlessly and with altruism for the good of our community.

I heart fully agree with Mel Lehan and the Barsta. A streetcar is already way “rapid” enough for Broadway corridor, a slower one than the Olympic line gently mixing with traffic will allow better windows shopping, and frequent stop a great convenience for store, is a perfect solution for Broadway

I saw here people from the eastern Vancouver and suburbs eager to spread poverty and all sort of devil to our well preserved neighborhoods, and we will never be grateful enough for the stand out of the Great Mel Lehan against the crime train vision.

May God Bless Mel Lehan and the Barsta.

POSTED BY: MARY
DATE: 01/02/2010 7:33 PM
LAST MODIFIED: 03/03/2010 9:57 AM

[MechMike]

Progress haters.


Worried about high volume traffic going through their neighborhood? You kidding me? If the skytrain system would be underground you would barely notice passengers, LRT would create a mess. If you want more people window shopping you need a denser neighborhood and if you want a denser neighborhood you need a high capcity frequent and reliable transit network.

Somebody call the waaahmbulance because some business owner cant promote his or her business like everyone else, lets cater to those who don't want to hold their cups in their hands and install cup holders and free refills in each car. Oh please.

Just think of all the worms and soil your going to displace while burrowing the tunnel! Oh no not the worms!

[officedweller]

But the businesses on Granville quickly found out that 'those commuters' that they hated so much were also their local residents using the 98 B-Line to get downtown and back home.

Yeah, that's the irony of it.