PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Broadway Millennium Line Extension | Proposed



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

tybuilding
May 28, 2010, 12:19 AM
Funny how there isn't a comments area for the story.

There are no comments for any of the stories the Vancouver Sun or Province websites, it would be nice.

trofirhen
May 28, 2010, 2:20 AM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:
On top of all this yes / no argumentation, if, as someone mentioned earlier,the skytrain rrt westward is tunnel-bored under 10th avenue, it will have nowhere near the disruptive impact that Canada Line cut-and-cover did. So, if one sticks to that premise as the future way, the NIMBY's and tight-assed ZWEI-clones might just shut-the-freak-up a little more.

Vonny
May 28, 2010, 5:59 AM
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

BARSTA view on skytrain is that basically, it increases crime and congestion (sic), and is associated with all sort of negative cliches you can think of, as you will be able to read here:
http://westvancouver.ca/uploadedFiles/Your_Government/Agendas_and_Minutes/2009/October/09oct19-cc17.pdf

lezard
May 28, 2010, 7:13 AM
BARSTA view on skytrain is that basically, it increases crime and congestion (sic), and is associated with all sort of negative cliches you can think of, as you will be able to read here:
http://westvancouver.ca/uploadedFiles/Your_Government/Agendas_and_Minutes/2009/October/09oct19-cc17.pdf

I think, what we are seeing here is the result of arguing for Transit modes without taking into account their principal target users.

A "ding-Ding" streetcar or street level LRT will be most efficient at moving those people that are aiming for the short trip commute and/or the shopping trip.

Grade separated or underground LRT (Skytrain) mainly targets the longer trip user.

In both cases, and assuming there is no choice between modes, then the long trip respectively the short trip users will still use the mode but will find it less than ideal.

If, like in many greater metropolises, there is choice, i. e. both modes running parallel to each other, than the users will segregate themselves according to their needs.

It goes without saying Vancouver will not be able to afford that option for the next few decades.

Those of us who want Skytrain are in fact thinking most of the long trip users and its value to the regional commute.

Those who would prefer Streetcar or LRT are thinking more of the commercial advantages to the corridor it would serve.

The choice of mode for the corridor will have to be a choice of which transit user Translink is essentially targeting.

trofirhen
May 28, 2010, 1:28 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous: :previous:

This is shaping up to be a toughie - due to the cost factor more than any of the other factors.
However, IMHO, extending the Millenium Line to Cambie to link up with the Canada Line is unarguably and vitally necessary

jsbertram
May 28, 2010, 4:04 PM
BARSTA view on skytrain is that basically, it increases crime and congestion (sic), and is associated with all sort of negative cliches you can think of, as you will be able to read here:
http://westvancouver.ca/uploadedFiles/Your_Government/Agendas_and_Minutes/2009/October/09oct19-cc17.pdf

Has there been any Police or Translink stats released showing crimes around the new stations since the Canada Line opened last year?

satishreddy
May 28, 2010, 4:07 PM
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.

I read this article. Let me add my 2cents. I think some of my comments are similar to those of others.

Here are some quotes from the article and my responses:

(1) The group is concerned about losing quality of life. The are concerned that Skytrain will destroy existing neighborhoods.

Exactly how is quality of life going to be lost if there is a subway. It will barely be noticed visually. Is "quality of life" code word for keeping the hordes from "east" out of their neighborhood.

To counter this argument, we simply have to keep saying that a subway will not compromise quality of life. It will improve it. It will be out of the way. It will reduce the number of buses that go through the neighborhood, reducing noise and pollution. It will also reduce travel time for people for people using transit trying to go to downtown, the airport, central Broadway, Burnaby, etc.

(2) Greg Booth of the Upper Kitsilano Residents Association said locals are worried about high passenger volumes going through their neighbourhood.

The Broadway corridor with the 9, 17, 99 buses already has the transit ridership of any region in Metro Vancouver. There are already high passenger volumes going through their neighborhood. With a subway, the high volumes won't be noticed.

In the Kits and Point Grey regions, I suspect a subway will have stops at MacDonald, Alma, and Sasamat. With increased ridership, there will be a few more people getting off at these stops.

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

Compared with a subway, surface rail will have a significantly more negative impact on the streetscape and quality of life.

There is no point building a tram, streetcar, light rail, etc unless it has a greater capacity and is faster than the 99 bus. We already have a tram/streetcar - the 9 bus. Any lightrail system will have to be partially grade separated in order to have travel times that less than the 99 bus. The lightrail system will cut the neighborhood in half. Thru lanes on broadway will be reduced and parking may have to be eliminated. How is that going to benefit people?

Note also that building a surface system will involve tearing up the street along Broadway and 10th Avenue for a couple of years. How will that improve people's quality of life?

People, I think it is better to focus on arguments based on facts rather than getting into a name calling contest. We may not be able to convince all people about the benefits of a subway, but we should focus on the large group of people in the middle.

Zassk
May 28, 2010, 4:32 PM
However, IMHO, extending the Millenium Line to Cambie to link up with the Canada Line is unarguably and vitally necessary

On this note, I was highly encouraged by a certain quote in the Vancouver Sun article (http://www.thenownews.com/news/Evergreen+building+2011/3072697/story.html) posted in the Evergreen Line thread. Specifically the following:

"They recognize -- I'm sure that everyone else does -- what a priority this is, not just for Coquitlam and that area but, in fact, for everyone who would benefit from the use of that line being connected to SkyTrain and ultimately Canada Line," she said.

It makes me wonder if an announcement is in the pipeline for a "phase 1" from VCC-Clark to Canada Line. Perhaps a "feel-good" announcement for the next election.

WarrenC12
May 28, 2010, 5:26 PM
On this note, I was highly encouraged by a certain quote in the Vancouver Sun article (http://www.thenownews.com/news/Evergreen+building+2011/3072697/story.html) posted in the Evergreen Line thread. Specifically the following:



It makes me wonder if an announcement is in the pipeline for a "phase 1" from VCC-Clark to Canada Line. Perhaps a "feel-good" announcement for the next election.

The delay in this announcement has been ridiculous. If it was status quo I'm not sure why they'd wait so long. I have a feeling it is either something like you describe as a "phase 1", or, more likely, they are struggling just to get enough money for Evergreen. :(

BCPhil
May 28, 2010, 10:04 PM
I think, what we are seeing here is the result of arguing for Transit modes without taking into account their principal target users.

A "ding-Ding" streetcar or street level LRT will be most efficient at moving those people that are aiming for the short trip commute and/or the shopping trip.

Grade separated or underground LRT (Skytrain) mainly targets the longer trip user.

In both cases, and assuming there is no choice between modes, then the long trip respectively the short trip users will still use the mode but will find it less than ideal.

If, like in many greater metropolises, there is choice, i. e. both modes running parallel to each other, than the users will segregate themselves according to their needs.

It goes without saying Vancouver will not be able to afford that option for the next few decades.

Those of us who want Skytrain are in fact thinking most of the long trip users and its value to the regional commute.

Those who would prefer Streetcar or LRT are thinking more of the commercial advantages to the corridor it would serve.

The choice of mode for the corridor will have to be a choice of which transit user Translink is essentially targeting.

I think this is the root of the issue. Who is going to use the system and more importantly, who travels only inside the Broadway Corridor?

As it is now, and will be for the foreseeable future, the Broadway Corridor isn't a single community, it's a series of communities all in a linear path. Broadway Corridor isn't like taking downtown and unraveling it like your intestines. Most point to point trips, even the ones only inside the corridor, are typically really long trips.

If you were to track any one person leaving a random building on Broadway and getting on a bus, the odds of them staying inside the corridor are slim. It would be a good bet they are leaving the area, either UBC, Downtown, Canada Line (to Richmond or beyond) or Commercial for the Skytrain (taking them anywhere). It's a minority of people who would be staying on Broadway itself. Why build a tram, which supports local short distance travel, for the direct benefit of the minority of travelers?

LRT/Tram would be great for local travel, but I would argue that noone making local trips would be going east-west very far, making even a tram almost pointless in their day to day lives. More likely they would be more interested in to-from downtown.

That's why Skytrain is so foreign to residents in Kits or Point Grey. They don't care one tiny bit about other parts of Broadway. They live in Kits, hop on a bus or bike, and 10 minutes later they are where they want to be: DOWNTOWN. How many people that live in Kits regularly travel further east than Cambie or Main street, or even Granville for that mater.

I would argue that Skytrain under Broadway isn't for the residents in Kits or Point Grey, it's for the rest of the region. Their concerns and ideas should be taken into account, but Skytrain isn't being built just for them. People outside the Broadway Corridor want to get to their jobs and schools in a reasonable amount of time. And Translink wants to save money in the long run. Financing skytrain might have a huge upfront cost, but over time it's far cheaper to run than the current (and future) volume of buses needed on the road.

CLC
May 28, 2010, 11:20 PM
Bad news for Skytrain lobbists... Wednesday long closure of Surrey track is now described as first derailment in 25 years


TransLink investigates SkyTrain derailment

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun May 28, 2010 3:49 PM

METRO VANCOUVER -- TransLink is trying to figure out how one of its SkyTrains lost a piece of its brake on the Expo line tracks Wednesday, leading to the derailment of a second train and the closure of a section of track for five hours.

Doug Kelsey, president of B.C. Rapid Transit Co., said the second train was out of service and pulling into the turnaround section of track — past the King George SkyTrain station — on Wednesday morning when it struck a brake caliper lodged in the track. The collision forced one of the train's axles to jump out of the track and derail.

No one was aboard as the train was in the no-passenger zone, Kelsey said, so there was no risk to the public. The train had been travelling between four and eight kilometres an hour.

"This has never happened before, in 25 years," Kelsey said. "We're quite perplexed by it."

Meanwhile, the first train, which had continued on the route, was stopped at either the King George or Surrey Central stations and placed in quarantine, Kelsey said, while the section of track between Gateway and King George stations was closed. A bus bridge set up to ferry passengers to the Surrey Central or King George stations.

The tracks were reopened at 4:05 p.m. just before rush hour.

Kelsey noted the travelling public was never in jeopardy as SkyTrains have a multiple braking system — including an emergency stop mechanism — in each car. The brake caliper was one of the original pieces on the SkyTrain, which has been operating since 1995.

All the trains are inspected every six weeks. The quarantined train was due for an inspection in two weeks' time, Kelsey said.

The whole fleet has since been inspected and Kelsey said as a precaution the checks will now take place every three weeks.

The train will remain in quarantine until technical staff figure out what happened. "We won't be moving it until we determine what caused [the brake piece to fall off]," he said, but added: "The public is absolutely safe out there."

ksinoski@vancouversun.com

jsbertram
May 28, 2010, 11:37 PM
On this note, I was highly encouraged by a certain quote in the Vancouver Sun article (http://www.thenownews.com/news/Evergreen+building+2011/3072697/story.html) posted in the Evergreen Line thread. Specifically the following:



It makes me wonder if an announcement is in the pipeline for a "phase 1" from VCC-Clark to Canada Line. Perhaps a "feel-good" announcement for the next election.

If the politicians are itching to announce Phase 1 of the UBC line (VCC to Cambie), they aren't so stupid as to do it before the UBC Line Rapid Transit Study public consultation is finished.

Its my understanding from the UBC line study website ( http://bepartoftheplan.ca ) that the public consultation part of phase II has wrapped for the summer while the planners digest what they heard from the public and turn those ideas into more detailed studies of the short-listed alternatives. In the Fall, there will be another round of public comments on these revised short-listed alternatives with hopes of getting to a single preferred choice by the Spring of 2011.

Then the politicians can make their announcement of funding the preferred choice - even if its only from VCC to Cambie - but they'd be crazy to give the UBC line the go-ahead before Evergreen starts construction.

I'm not expecting a funding announcement for the UBC line until Evergreen is months or a year into construction, with UBC line construction starting (or at least the contractor announced) in time for the May 2013 Election.

eduardo88
May 28, 2010, 11:40 PM
:previous:
that's completely true. i used to live in point grey, and i can't name a single time i ventured past main (or even cambie for that matter)

lezard
May 29, 2010, 1:26 AM
I think this is the root of the issue. Who is going to use the system and more importantly, who travels only inside the Broadway Corridor?

As it is now, and will be for the foreseeable future, the Broadway Corridor isn't a single community, it's a series of communities all in a linear path. Broadway Corridor isn't like taking downtown and unraveling it like your intestines. Most point to point trips, even the ones only inside the corridor, are typically really long trips.

If you were to track any one person leaving a random building on Broadway and getting on a bus, the odds of them staying inside the corridor are slim. It would be a good bet they are leaving the area, either UBC, Downtown, Canada Line (to Richmond or beyond) or Commercial for the Skytrain (taking them anywhere). It's a minority of people who would be staying on Broadway itself. Why build a tram, which supports local short distance travel, for the direct benefit of the minority of travelers?

LRT/Tram would be great for local travel, but I would argue that noone making local trips would be going east-west very far, making even a tram almost pointless in their day to day lives. More likely they would be more interested in to-from downtown.

That's why Skytrain is so foreign to residents in Kits or Point Grey. They don't care one tiny bit about other parts of Broadway. They live in Kits, hop on a bus or bike, and 10 minutes later they are where they want to be: DOWNTOWN. How many people that live in Kits regularly travel further east than Cambie or Main street, or even Granville for that mater.

I would argue that Skytrain under Broadway isn't for the residents in Kits or Point Grey, it's for the rest of the region. Their concerns and ideas should be taken into account, but Skytrain isn't being built just for them. People outside the Broadway Corridor want to get to their jobs and schools in a reasonable amount of time. And Translink wants to save money in the long run. Financing skytrain might have a huge upfront cost, but over time it's far cheaper to run than the current (and future) volume of buses needed on the road.

I've been trying to find a breakdown of the 100'000 daily trips quoted by Translink by trip length or number of stops and mybe trip purpose.

I'm not sure the short trips are that much of a minority. I remember coming across an estimate of the UBC ridership, and if I recall correctly, it was some 40% of the corridor ridership. Add the other long distance commuters and their might still be a sizable portion of short trippers.

I can't agree with satishreddy concerning the point where Streetcar makes sense. Street level streetcar is warranted along any corridor where the ridership reaches the maximum capacity of the existing rubber based transit mode.

I think you might be surprised by how many people use the east west corridor for their daily needs. Anyone living with a few blocks of Broadway might find the B.Line rather handy to reach the shopping district between Cambie and Main, More so now where major London Drugs, Canadian Tire, Home Depot and others are setting up in the corridor.

Streetcar/LRT typically doubles or even quadruples the capacity of a corridor. The speed gain comes from a combination of the higher acceleration and braking characteristics of rail based vehicles and the freeing up of the roadbed by retiring the bus/trolley mode along the corridor.

That means less vehicles on the road. Add to that, assuming of course the accompanying measures necessary are implemented, the reduction in private vehicle trips along the corridor, the reduction in traffic should allow for a smoother flow for the Streetcar/LRT.

That's if your principal goal is to augment capacity without adding significant speed gains. The price of that option is significantly lower than the option that both upgrades capacity and speed.

For that, you need grade separation, either underground, overpasses at all road crossings or elevated tracks.

So, Streetcar and grade separated LRT are not truly competing technologies. they target different levels of transit capacity at different costs and each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

The choice will boil down to how much the Province and Translink are willing to invest in the corridor and what level of capacity can be achieved with the available funding determined by the first choice.

It looks more and more likely to me that it will be combination of grade separated LRT to Cambie and Streetcar/LRT or Rapidbus/B-Line from there to UBC.

mr.x
May 29, 2010, 1:37 AM
Oh please let it be the Octopus projects consortium....




Bids coming to create TransLink's fare gate and smart card system, due in 2013


By Staff Reporter, The Province
May 28, 2010 2:02 PM

METRO VANCOUVER — Those TransLink “smart cards” and fare gates heading for service in 2013 got a step closer this week with selection of three companies to submit proposals for the multi-million-dollar electronic payment system.

The three consortia are: Thales/Octopus International Projects, which has provided systems in Hong Kong; Serco/Parkeon, which created a system for Perth in Australia; and Cubic/IBM, whose systems include London’s “Oyster Card.”

TransLink’s smart cards will be loadable with funds that will be drawn down by electronic readers that calculate fares based on point of entry, departure, route and time of day.

The transit authority says the data will allow it to plan service more efficiently by generating a “significant amount of data” on how riders use the system.

As part of the project, fare gates will be installed in SkyTrain and SeaBus stations, which were built without them. Modifications will also be made to Expo Line SkyTrain stations, most of which were not designed with enough space for fare gates.

TransLink officials said Friday that Victoria will contribute $40 million to the project, Ottawa $30 million and the remainder could be covered by TransLink.

The three consortia will be asked in June to develop formal proposals. A contract — which will include operation and maintenance of the system for 10 years — will be awarded later this year.
© Copyright (c) The Province



Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/business/Bids+coming+create+TransLink+fare+gate+smart+card+system+2013/3084245/story.html#ixzz0pHJaGJof

jsbertram
May 29, 2010, 2:22 AM
:previous:
that's completely true. i used to live in point grey, and i can't name a single time i ventured past main (or even cambie for that matter)

A few years ago some friends and I decided to go to the Abbotsford Air show. After driving from Vancouver through Burnaby & over the Port Mann, one of them said "So this is where Surrey is!" I nearly drove off the road in amazement.

He'd never been out of Vancouver (except to use the airport) since graduating from BCIT in the early 90s.

The rest of the party crew admitted that they sometimes needed to go to Burnaby, the North Shore or Richmond, but none could remember visiting anywhere else in the GVRD since moving to Vancouver. None of us were born & raised in Vancouver - we're all imports from back east who refused to spend another minute of our lives shoveling snow.

Before the air show trip, I had been to Abbotsford on business visiting a client once a week until they moved their offices to Burnaby, but I don't think any of us have been east of Burnaby since that trip to the Abbotsford Air show. (flying over en route to/from YVR doesn't count)

GeeCee
May 29, 2010, 3:47 AM
Hey mr. X, care to post some of their work? :)

deasine
May 29, 2010, 5:25 AM
Please direct all smart card related discussions to its dedicated thread.

mr.x
May 29, 2010, 5:47 AM
Please direct all smart card related discussions to its dedicated thread.

haha, whoops my bad...


Anyhow, something that zwei quoted on his blog:


Canada’s gridlocked mayors call for multi-level strategy on transit

By Mike De Souza, Canwest News Service

OTTAWA — Gridlock and lack of federal funding for public transit is jeopardizing Canada’s economic recovery, say mayors from across the country.

Heading into an annual conference this week in Toronto, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is hoping the Harper government addresses some of their transit woes that have left some of the country’s largest urban centres at the bottom of a recent international ranking on traffic gridlock and the daily commute.

“Ultimately, it comes down to sustainable funding for transit because the federal government has been very good, along with the provincial governments across the country and in our region, at building infrastructure,” said Langley, B.C., Mayor Peter Fassbender. “But our challenge is the operating funds to ensure that we will meet the transit needs of the future.”

Fassbender said the three levels of government in Canada need to come up with a long-term plan that addresses not only the movement of passengers, but also the transportation of goods and services.

“That is going to feed into the economic strategy for the country, for the provinces and for each of the municipalities involved,” said Fassbender, also the chair of the mayor’s council for TransLink, Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation authority.

Meanwhile, a 19-city analysis by the Toronto Board of Trade concluded in April that five Canadian cities had some of the longest average commute times to and from work.

While Barcelona was on top with an average daily commute time of 48.4 minutes, Montreal and Toronto were at the bottom with commute times estimated at 76 minutes and 80 minutes respectively. Halifax was 10th in the analysis, with a 65-minute commute, while Calgary and Vancouver took both the 13th and 14th places, each with an average trek of 67 minutes.

The survey showed that Canadians in these cities were facing longer commutes than people in the busy centres of Milan, Los Angeles and Berlin.

Claude Dauphin, the mayor the Montreal borough of Lachine, noted that his region has one of the highest proportions of transit users for its population, but he said that cities across Canada all have enormous needs to upgrade and operate their services and reduce congestion.

He added that Canada is the only G8 country without a national transit strategy.

“Congestion is causing a lot of problems to our economy and that’s not the kind of thing we’ll solve tomorrow morning,” said Dauphin. “All the leaders of the different (federal) political parties will have to address this question, or we will have to ask them this question.”

The mayors, who are expecting to hear from Prime Minister Stephen Harper during their conference on Friday, said a new long-term strategy with funding for transit issues would also address pollution and climate change concerns.

While they acknowledge that federal and provincial governments have started to reinvest in infrastructure after a period of cuts in the 1990s, the municipal politicians say they need a long-term solution for revenues that goes beyond property taxes.

Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco said all forms of infrastructure require more investments in cities, including waste-water systems which are slated to meet new treatment standards that would require billions of dollars in new investments.

“There’s got to be a better way of conducting infrastructure business,” said Fiacco. “We are in the 21st century and we’re still living on a model from 1867, and that’s not right.”

The cities have maintained that they only have eight per cent of total government-tax revenues in Canada to work with, but must deliver more in terms of services and infrastructure investments.

“We (municipalities) have the most limited resources available to us and we need to look at what can be done differently,” said Fiacco. “What is it that we can do differently to ensure that we will not be in an infrastructure crisis? Some would say that we already are.”

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=railforthevalley.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theprovince.com%2Fnews%2FCanada%2Bgridlocked%2Bmayors%2Bcall%2Bmulti%2Blevel%2Bstrategy%2Btransit%2F3074915%2Fstory.html&sref=http%3A%2F%2Frailforthevalley.wordpress.com%2F





And his blog response to this article:

The following news item shows that the issue of public and regional transit and funding of transit is beginning to creep into the politicians radar. Throwing more money at transit will not solve very much as politicians have a very strange habit of funding their ‘pet‘ projects. The federal government can help by rewriting the ‘Railways Act’ to take into account their almost total monopoly over railway infrastructure, the vast majority of it paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. Small commuter-rail lines and the advent of the TramTrain, means that the national and regional railways must make available (by statute or contract) train pathways for such services on their rails.

RFV makes the following suggestions for Canada’s ‘gridlocked‘ mayors to make of the federal government.

1. Mandate by law that railway companies must allow passenger/commuter rail/tramtrain service on their lines.
2. Mandate by law that all disused or abandoned rail routes, in urban areas, are kept for ‘rail‘ transit use.
3. Mandate by law a funding cap of $25 million/km. be placed on all road and rail transit projects; all costs above the funding cap must be approved by local referendum.
4. Mandate by law a full and open independent review of all transit projects, which cost over $100 million.
5. A review and implementation of new road and highway safety rules for railway crossings, with the onus placed on the auto driver to obey such rules.

Such laws in place in Canada would help curb the present mania for gold-plated transit projects so favoured by politicians and bureaucrats, as well leave open cheaper options for ‘rail‘ transit projects hitherto ignored in this country. We are nearing the precipice of ‘peak oil’ and ‘global warming’ and there will be a great need to utilize both existing railway lines and abandoned and disused rail lines. To prepare for the future, our politicos must act now.

racc
May 29, 2010, 6:35 AM
Another option for Broadway if the government doesn't get around to it. Anyone got a pick and a trowel or two?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/russian-man-singlehandedly-builds-subway.php
Russian Man Single-Handedly Builds Underground Subway System

Everybody is into rail these days; it is the greenest way to get around next to a bike. Leonid Mulyanchik has been into it for years since before the Berlin Wall fell, since before the first Macintosh, building "his own private underground Metro railway system." English-Russia says that he has been doing it with his pension, that it is all legal and approved and that he is still at it. Gizmodo calls it "inspiring, one man against all odds type of persistence, but more the obsessive, borderline insane persistence."

BCPhil
May 29, 2010, 9:22 AM
I've been trying to find a breakdown of the 100'000 daily trips quoted by Translink by trip length or number of stops and mybe trip purpose.

I'm not sure the short trips are that much of a minority. I remember coming across an estimate of the UBC ridership, and if I recall correctly, it was some 40% of the corridor ridership. Add the other long distance commuters and their might still be a sizable portion of short trippers.

I can't agree with satishreddy concerning the point where Streetcar makes sense. Street level streetcar is warranted along any corridor where the ridership reaches the maximum capacity of the existing rubber based transit mode.

I think you might be surprised by how many people use the east west corridor for their daily needs. Anyone living with a few blocks of Broadway might find the B.Line rather handy to reach the shopping district between Cambie and Main, More so now where major London Drugs, Canadian Tire, Home Depot and others are setting up in the corridor.


Even if 40% is correct, adding commuters heading to the Central Broadway BD, would easily be another 30% of current commuters, making it a clear majority. Going from Commercial to VGH might not seem that long a commute, but it is when you include how far they've come before Commercial (like Coquitlam or Surrey). There is also a huge potential to attract more riders to transit if the Broadway CBD is well served by rapid transit. Even a large number of even shorter trips inside the corridor would still originate/terminate outside the corridor.

I really don't see that many people that live on Broadway coming a long way East to the Cambie area. There is a London Drugs already on West Broadway for Kits Residents, as well as multiple grocery stores, and even a Future Shop. And even trips to the Cambie shopping area would be considered excursions, not routine trips to/from work that Skytrain would target.

I think it's pretty clear that most trips on the Broadway corridor are regional based trips. People entering or leaving the corridor. People in Kits who complain about Skytrain bringing too many people through their neighborhood have no conception about what it's like for other people to get to the city. They are only basing their reaction on the fact that their lives are good the way they are, it's easy to get downtown and UBC isn't that far away. Many have zero empathy for other people in the region. What will Skytrain do for the average Kits resident? Nothing. If they go to UBC it might marginally lower their travel time (being that they are already fairly close), and it doesn't help them get downtown that much, so of course they are going to be against it. So I would argue they aren't even stakeholders in the situation really, as improvements on the Broadway corridor aren't for them, but for residents of the rest of Metro Vancouver.

lezard
May 29, 2010, 9:53 AM
Even if 40% is correct, adding commuters heading to the Central Broadway BD, would easily be another 30% of current commuters, making it a clear majority. Going from Commercial to VGH might not seem that long a commute, but it is when you include how far they've come before Commercial (like Coquitlam or Surrey). There is also a huge potential to attract more riders to transit if the Broadway CBD is well served by rapid transit. Even a large number of even shorter trips inside the corridor would still originate/terminate outside the corridor.

I really don't see that many people that live on Broadway coming a long way East to the Cambie area. There is a London Drugs already on West Broadway for Kits Residents, as well as multiple grocery stores, and even a Future Shop. And even trips to the Cambie shopping area would be considered excursions, not routine trips to/from work that Skytrain would target.

I think it's pretty clear that most trips on the Broadway corridor are regional based trips. People entering or leaving the corridor. People in Kits who complain about Skytrain bringing too many people through their neighborhood have no conception about what it's like for other people to get to the city. They are only basing their reaction on the fact that their lives are good the way they are, it's easy to get downtown and UBC isn't that far away. Many have zero empathy for other people in the region. What will Skytrain do for the average Kits resident? Nothing. If they go to UBC it might marginally lower their travel time (being that they are already fairly close), and it doesn't help them get downtown that much, so of course they are going to be against it. So I would argue they aren't even stakeholders in the situation really, as improvements on the Broadway corridor aren't for them, but for residents of the rest of Metro Vancouver.

Well, without any firm numbers it isn't at all clear as you say and all of this is just speculation.

Improvements on the broadway corridor do not just benefit the rest of Vancouver, even using the highly speculative 30% of trips on the corridor as being short trips within the corridor then we are still talking about a third of the users. 30'000 daily users is not a group you can just discount like that.

That's the kind of attitude that can sink Skytrain to UBC, by not taking seriously all the stakeholders involved. The taxpayers of every part of this Province are stakeholders, it's their tax dollars too that will fund the line.

punface
Jun 2, 2010, 12:06 AM
The Globe & Mail has an article that is relevant to the Broadway debate: "In Vancouver, beware of cars; in Toronto, watch for streetcar tracks"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-vancouver-beware-of-cars-in-toronto-watch-for-streetcar-tracks/article1587335/

It's about a study that found streetcar tracks and streetcars are the number one source of cyclist injury in Toronto. The comments are fairly interesting too.

I post this a bit reluctantly because I like streetcars, just not for Broadway. :)

jsbertram
Jun 2, 2010, 11:07 PM
At one of the UBC line meetings last month, someone was actually wanting to add bike lanes to Broadway.

Sidewalks, parking lanes, bike lanes, traffic lanes, turning lanes, streetcar lanes. Someone pointed out to her that 'there was only so much width to Broadway unless you want to start knocking down buildings' like Baron Haussmann and Napoléon III did to Paris in the mid-1800s (being emperor does have its advantages).

It was also pointed out to her that most people would rather bike on the parallel 8th Ave or 10th Ave roads away from the Broadway traffic.

racc
Jun 2, 2010, 11:34 PM
At one of the UBC line meetings last month, someone was actually wanting to add bike lanes to Broadway.

Sidewalks, parking lanes, bike lanes, traffic lanes, turning lanes, streetcar lanes. Someone pointed out to her that 'there was only so much width to Broadway unless you want to start knocking down buildings' like Baron Haussmann and Napoléon III did to Paris in the mid-1800s (being emperor does have its advantages).

It was also pointed out to her that most people would rather bike on the parallel 8th Ave or 10th Ave roads away from the Broadway traffic.

8th and 10th are popular bicycle routes but so is Broadway due to shops and other popular destinations. There are a lot of cyclists using Broadway, both on the road and the sidewalks. People cycling on sidewalks is a good indication of demand for separated bike lanes. As the number of people who cycle increase, so will the number of people wanting to cycle on Broadway. Already in many of the neighbourhoods around Broadway, between 5% and 10% of people cycle to work. Not bad for North America.

Back in the 70's, Copenhagen tried to get all the cyclists off main streets by upgrading routes on side streets. This did not work as these routes did not take cyclists where they wanted to go so they put in separated bike lanes on arterial streets and now they have 40% of trips by bicycle. Hard to argue with success.

Anyway, this is just another reason to have rapid transit underground.

deasine
Jun 3, 2010, 12:53 AM
I would like to see bike lanes on Broadway as well, something that will definitely be impossible with LRT.

aberdeen5698
Jun 3, 2010, 5:49 AM
8th and 10th are popular bicycle routes but so is Broadway due to shops and other popular destinations.Speaking as someone who cycles to destinations of Broadway from time to time, 10th works perfectly well. You really only need to use Broadway for the "last block" to your destination, and for that last block I usually walk my bike on the sidewalk rather than be squeezed between heavy traffic and parked cars that can open their doors at any second.

I do ride my bike on the sidewalk from time to time where I think it's better on the balance to risk a ticket than my life, but I find that Broadway is generally too crowded to do it safely.

wrenegade
Jun 3, 2010, 8:19 AM
I would like to see bike lanes on Broadway as well, something that will definitely be impossible with LRT.

Isn't West 8th supposed to be the designated bike route?

WarrenC12
Jun 3, 2010, 3:06 PM
I would like to see bike lanes on Broadway as well, something that will definitely be impossible with LRT.

Can't they just ride on the rails and listen for the polite "ding, ding"?

:D

city-dweller
Jun 3, 2010, 4:00 PM
Can't they just ride on the rails and listen for the polite "ding, ding"?

:D

Followed by the loud crash as a car is trying to turn right before the train blocks it.:haha:

punface
Jun 22, 2010, 2:04 AM
A reminder if anyone is interested in going and taking notes - BARSTA's meeting regarding Broadway is tomorrow.

This is according to a post last month from our friends at railforthevalley ... I haven't seen anything mentioned since then, so maybe it has been cancelled?


Business and Residents Association for Sustainable Alternative Transport re:

Broadway and w 10th proposed Translink
Community meeting on June 22nd 7.30 P.M.

St. James Community Centre, West 10th Ave and Trutch.

Speakers include Patrick Condon of UBC
Mel Lehan, local NDP candidate and comm. organizer.

All welcome

Alex Mackinnon
Jun 22, 2010, 2:15 AM
8th and 10th are popular bicycle routes but so is Broadway due to shops and other popular destinations. There are a lot of cyclists using Broadway, both on the road and the sidewalks. People cycling on sidewalks is a good indication of demand for separated bike lanes. As the number of people who cycle increase, so will the number of people wanting to cycle on Broadway. Already in many of the neighbourhoods around Broadway, between 5% and 10% of people cycle to work. Not bad for North America.

Back in the 70's, Copenhagen tried to get all the cyclists off main streets by upgrading routes on side streets. This did not work as these routes did not take cyclists where they wanted to go so they put in separated bike lanes on arterial streets and now they have 40% of trips by bicycle. Hard to argue with success.

Anyway, this is just another reason to have rapid transit underground.

I have to say I like riding on 8th and 10th a lot more than on Broadway. The only big advantage to people using Broadway for bike trips (other than last block destinations) at night is the better lighting. 8th and 10th don't have nearly as much noise, traffic, pollution or on hot sunny days, exposed sun. It's a lot nicer environment to ride on.

During the day 8th or 10th is much faster because you don't have to wait for the pedestrian lights. The only downside to 8th and 10th is that the right of way hasn't been finished. There's still a number of intersections that would work much better as traffic circles (8th and Collingwood for example). Additionally it would work a lot better if the curb was brought out near the intersections along 8th or 10th to make sure that parked cars don't obscure the sight lines of the intersection. This is especially a problem between Alma and McDonald.

big T
Jun 22, 2010, 3:54 AM
I think both are needed. Biking on the 10th bikeways will always be nicer if you're just passing through the area, e.g. on your way to Spanish banks from the east side. But if you're actually patronizing the retail on broadway itself then you need a bike lane there. Going for the last block only works only if you already know where you're going. I don't think it's very conducive to the kind of traffic that makes a retail area a really healthy shopping destination.

What I'd love to see would be for a street corner to have a substantial amount of space set out for a large bike rack, a la Granville island, somewhere near the heart of he broadway commercial stretch. That way people could bike all the way there using the 10th avenue bikeway, then make a turn (ideally following clear signage) to reach the bike parkade. Cyclists get reasonable assurance they will find a spot to secure their bike and then get converted into foot traffic right in the heart of the commercial stretch -- everybody wins.

cabotp
Jun 22, 2010, 8:43 AM
Isn't West 8th supposed to be the designated bike route?

It is west of Yew. At Trafalgar the 10th Ave Bike route ends and you switch over to 8th.

East of Yew instead of 8th. The bike route jogs between 7th, 5th and 6th Ave.

cabotp
Jun 22, 2010, 8:47 AM
I have to say I like riding on 8th and 10th a lot more than on Broadway. The only big advantage to people using Broadway for bike trips (other than last block destinations) at night is the better lighting. 8th and 10th don't have nearly as much noise, traffic, pollution or on hot sunny days, exposed sun. It's a lot nicer environment to ride on.

During the day 8th or 10th is much faster because you don't have to wait for the pedestrian lights. The only downside to 8th and 10th is that the right of way hasn't been finished. There's still a number of intersections that would work much better as traffic circles (8th and Collingwood for example). Additionally it would work a lot better if the curb was brought out near the intersections along 8th or 10th to make sure that parked cars don't obscure the sight lines of the intersection. This is especially a problem between Alma and McDonald.

I love the traffic circles. I cycle Windsor from 37th to 10th every day. Other than 1 stop sign where it jogs over around 14th Ave. I don't have to stop or slow down that much at any of the other side streets.

I think I read somewhere that at Inverness and 45th. They are going to be putting in a circle.

aberdeen5698
Jun 22, 2010, 5:16 PM
I think I read somewhere that at Inverness and 45th. They are going to be putting in a circle.They're doing a lot of traffic calming on the easternmost section of 45th. It's been pretty busy for a bike route, so they've lowered the speed limit to 30km/h and they're installing diverters at Rupert and Clarendon/Elliot to prevent motorists from traveling straight through.

I have mixed feelings about it because when I'm driving the diverters prevent me from making a convenient left turn to get to my house, but I do use the street as a bike route and it has made it a lot quieter.

deasine
Jun 22, 2010, 7:27 PM
The problem with the diverts now is that there isn't a stop sign at Elliott, meaning thru traffic on Elliott just passes straight through. This means cyclists will have to stop and wait for the traffic to clear before going through, and there are quite a few cars on Elliott during the rush hour.

cabotp
Jun 23, 2010, 8:24 AM
They're doing a lot of traffic calming on the easternmost section of 45th. It's been pretty busy for a bike route, so they've lowered the speed limit to 30km/h and they're installing diverters at Rupert and Clarendon/Elliot to prevent motorists from traveling straight through.

I have mixed feelings about it because when I'm driving the diverters prevent me from making a convenient left turn to get to my house, but I do use the street as a bike route and it has made it a lot quieter.


Do you have a picture of what these diverters look like.

Last time I went along 45th Ave. Which was about 2 weeks ago on my bike. Rupert/Kerr at 45th was still a traffic light as it has always been. And Elliot/Claredon at 45th was a 4 way stop as it as always been. Nothing looked different than when I've driven through countless times before.

aberdeen5698
Jun 23, 2010, 4:18 PM
Do you have a picture of what these diverters look like.We're getting a little off topic for this thread, so I've posted a shot in the Bike/Pedestrian thread.

cabotp
Jun 23, 2010, 7:41 PM
We're getting a little off topic for this thread, so I've posted a shot in the Bike/Pedestrian thread.

Thanks I saw the picture. I realized we were getting off topic.

WarrenC12
Jun 23, 2010, 10:42 PM
Our good friend is at it again:

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/broadway-merchants-want-light-rail-not-skytrain-down-business-corridor/

I left a comment about construction woes for the Toronto LRT line but it was deleted. :rolleyes:

I like Donna Dobo's comment.. she wants it all. Like one of those old ladies at Safeway "I want all of my groceries in one bag... but not too heavy!!" :koko:

mr.x
Jun 24, 2010, 12:53 AM
Just posted comments in both the blog and in the Province.

jsbertram
Jun 24, 2010, 7:52 AM
Obviously nobody has explained to them that digging up Broadway to put LRT on the surface is equally as disruptive as digging up Broadway to put in a Skytrain tunnel. Whichever type of system you install, you'll be digging up the street to move power conduits, sewer lines, water lines, cable conduits, natural gas lines, Telus conduits (I know I'm forgetting something) so they aren't under the LRT tracks or in the way of the Skytrain tunnels.

Thats before any track construction happens.

If you're building surface LRT, the street gets dug to a depth of around 10 feet to build the required structure for the tracks and signalling system. If you're building Skytrain tunnels, you're now digging down 30, 40, 50 feet or more to build the tunnel and then covering it up again (a la Cambie). In either case, you have months of construction equipment and supplies on the street and sidewalk, no on-street parking, and no stopping in construction zones (other than the buses which will still be running).

Since the street is being torn up, you will get the "While we're doing this, can we also ...." suggestions:
a) add /remove /relocate the trees
b) add/ remove street parking
c) add /remove /relocate bus stops
d) add /remove /relocate truck loading zones
e) widen / narrow / straighten / level out the sidewalks
f) add /remove /relocate pedestrian crossings
g) add /remove traffic lights and/or left-turn lanes
h) add /remove /relocate the rush-hour Diamond Lanes
I) add /remove /relocate Bike Lanes

which add to the cost & add extra time to finish the project.
(all 77 blocks of it)

Look how long it took to re-surface 10 blocks of Granville street. This didn't require major moves of power conduits, sewer lines, water lines, cable conduits, natural gas lines &tc. to make way for LRT tracks on Granville either. Just new sidewalks, curbs and asphalt. And some granite accents and fancy lighting. The new trolley wires are still being installed, but the trolleys won't be back on Granville until September (I think)

cabotp
Jun 24, 2010, 8:49 AM
Our good friend is at it again:

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/broadway-merchants-want-light-rail-not-skytrain-down-business-corridor/

I left a comment about construction woes for the Toronto LRT line but it was deleted. :rolleyes:

I like Donna Dobo's comment.. she wants it all. Like one of those old ladies at Safeway "I want all of my groceries in one bag... but not too heavy!!" :koko:

So because other cities don't build a system like ours. It must mean that our system is no good as per zwei. Because everyone else has to be better than us.

There is one simple thing we have to remember. "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can not please all of the people all of the time."

I do feel that if they did the construction in sections instead of doing it as one big massive project. It would be less disruptive. Example would be to work on the section between VCC-Clark and Fraser, then do it to Main then Cambie. It would be opened until the whole thing is completed. But at least if they have to do any digging there wouldn't be one massive trench or a station hole for a few years. This I feel was the biggest problem with the Canada Line. It wasn't the cut and cover. It was the fact they dug one massive hole and had that hole for 3 years. If they done a section and worked hard to get each section done in as short a time as possible. You wouldn't of had the hole as long as you did in the Cambie Village area. It may of taken longer overall in time for the thing to be completed though. Which we couldn't do because of the time constraint with the Olympics.

trofirhen
Jun 24, 2010, 11:02 AM
Our good friend is at it again:

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/broadway-merchants-want-light-rail-not-skytrain-down-business-corridor/

I left a comment about construction woes for the Toronto LRT line but it was deleted. :rolleyes:

I like Donna Dobo's comment.. she wants it all. Like one of those old ladies at Safeway "I want all of my groceries in one bag... but not too heavy!!" :koko:
:previous:

I thought there was some kind of consensus that a skytrain to UBC would be bored under 10th Avenue, leaving Broadway largely intact. (But not so nice for the residents of 10th, I'm sure) Anyway, if it IS in fact going to be Skytrain, and not a "ding ding" left-turn crusher (and don't forget KENNY),
then it seems logical that drilling the tube along 10th is the answer.

At least, a number of people here seemed to agree. Or am I wrong?

WarrenC12
Jun 24, 2010, 1:59 PM
:previous:

I thought there was some kind of consensus that a skytrain to UBC would be bored under 10th Avenue, leaving Broadway largely intact. (But not so nice for the residents of 10th, I'm sure) Anyway, if it IS in fact going to be Skytrain, and not a "ding ding" left-turn crusher (and don't forget KENNY),
then it seems logical that drilling the tube along 10th is the answer.

At least, a number of people here seemed to agree. Or am I wrong?

No I think you are right about that understanding. The city doesn't want cut and cover, and 10th Ave was the planned routing. But BARSTA doesn't let facts get in the way of their ranting. :rolleyes:

twoNeurons
Jun 24, 2010, 2:23 PM
:previous:

There's more or less a consensus here... but nothing's been decided. When city planners say broadway, they're generally talking about the corridor, which goes from 4th to 10th, i think

jsbertram
Jun 24, 2010, 3:42 PM
:previous:

I thought there was some kind of consensus that a skytrain to UBC would be bored under 10th Avenue, leaving Broadway largely intact. (But not so nice for the residents of 10th, I'm sure) Anyway, if it IS in fact going to be Skytrain, and not a "ding ding" left-turn crusher (and don't forget KENNY),
then it seems logical that drilling the tube along 10th is the answer.

At least, a number of people here seemed to agree. Or am I wrong?

I don't understand why using TBM construction methods to build a SkyTrain tunnel under 10th Ave would even be noticed by residents & office workers in the area except for the individual blocks where the street needs to be opened up to dig down & build a station connected to the tunnels. For the other 65 blocks, it would be the same as what I experienced while standing in the lineup for the Commodore or any of the other Granville Party Street bars for the 5 years while the Canada Line was under construction. If you didn't notice that the single block between Georgia and Robson was dug up to build the new VCC station, you never would have known anything was being built under Granville (right under your feet) as the TBM tunnel was being built from False Creek to the Harbourfront.

If anything, you might feel the light rumble as the TBM machine grinds up the earth under the street as it passes close by your building, but at the usual pace of construction it will be further down your block within a day. For most people living or working on 10th Ave, the TBM passing by their building would be felt like a heavy truck rumbling by - except the TBM would be noticed only for the few hours when it is digging under the street closest to your building, whereas a heavy truck rumbling by your building may happen several times each hour and be a lot more noticeable & annoying.

trofirhen
Jun 24, 2010, 5:10 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous:

From the above postings, could one assume that bored tunnel under 10th is the most logical way to go (it seems so, here) thereby leaving Broadway largely unmolested, and the merchants able to continue with their business?

Probably not, as one obstacle seems to rear its head after another, but here's hopin'. ;)

djh
Jun 24, 2010, 5:39 PM
Obviously nobody has explained to them that digging up Broadway to put LRT on the surface is equally as disruptive as digging up Broadway to put in a Skytrain tunnel. Whichever type of system you install, you'll be digging up the street to move power conduits, sewer lines, water lines, cable conduits, natural gas lines, Telus conduits (I know I'm forgetting something) so they aren't under the LRT tracks or in the way of the Skytrain tunnels.

Thats before any track construction happens.

If you're building surface LRT, the street gets dug to a depth of around 10 feet to build the required structure for the tracks and signalling system. If you're building Skytrain tunnels, you're now digging down 30, 40, 50 feet or more to build the tunnel and then covering it up again (a la Cambie). In either case, you have months of construction equipment and supplies on the street and sidewalk, no on-street parking, and no stopping in construction zones (other than the buses which will still be running).

Since the street is being torn up, you will get the "While we're doing this, can we also ...." suggestions:
a) add /remove /relocate the trees
b) add/ remove street parking
c) add /remove /relocate bus stops
d) add /remove /relocate truck loading zones
e) widen / narrow / straighten / level out the sidewalks
f) add /remove /relocate pedestrian crossings
g) add /remove traffic lights and/or left-turn lanes
h) add /remove /relocate the rush-hour Diamond Lanes
I) add /remove /relocate Bike Lanes

which add to the cost & add extra time to finish the project.
(all 77 blocks of it)

Look how long it took to re-surface 10 blocks of Granville street. This didn't require major moves of power conduits, sewer lines, water lines, cable conduits, natural gas lines &tc. to make way for LRT tracks on Granville either. Just new sidewalks, curbs and asphalt. And some granite accents and fancy lighting. The new trolley wires are still being installed, but the trolleys won't be back on Granville until September (I think)


JB, I think you need to cut and paste your post, verbatim, to the RailForTheValley and the Province threads.
You've hit the nail squarely on the head.:tup:

The only other thing that would make your post perfect would be some illustrations to show people what it looks like at certain stages of disruption (e.g., how many lanes would be closed-off, locations of storage, machinery, equipment, etc). That would be enough to show people who aren't quite getting their head around the issue - At-Grade Is Very Disruptive Too!

WarrenC12
Jun 24, 2010, 5:54 PM
There is another entry at Rail for the Valley on the BARSTA meeting and LRT along Broadway. The idea of street level rail on Broadway in any form is simply ludicrous. Can't say anything else about it...

trofirhen
Jun 24, 2010, 6:05 PM
There is another entry at Rail for the Valley on the BARSTA meeting and LRT along Broadway. The idea of street level rail on Broadway in any form is simply ludicrous. Can't say anything else about it...

May I ask a question, please: What does BARSTA stand for?

Also, if the tunnel-boring along 10th is raised, it might make them shut the freak up !!

The whole issue of Broadway being either dug up, or ripped up SHOULD and COULD be made a non-issue, with a little subterfuge and savvy. (Like making the 10th Ave TBM the obvious solution)

Geez, I hope those brickheads chill out. Thanks for your time. :koko:

djh
Jun 24, 2010, 6:07 PM
:previous: :previous: :previous:

From the above postings, could one assume that bored tunnel under 10th is the most logical way to go (it seems so, here) thereby leaving Broadway largely unmolested, and the merchants able to continue with their business?

Probably not, as one obstacle seems to rear its head after another, but here's hopin'. ;)

Most logical, yes. Cheapest, No.

If cut and cover along 10th is considered, I wouldn't have a big problem with it. I lived through cut and cover along Cambie and had to walk out of first my condo (at 8th) and now my house (17th) straight into it for a few years. I'm sure the people on 10th can deal with it too, especially since they will still have access to their homes via the alleyways, and will no doubt be getting off 10th ASAP in any journeys they make.

trofirhen
Jun 24, 2010, 6:23 PM
Most logical, yes. Cheapest, No.

If cut and cover along 10th is considered, I wouldn't have a big problem with it. I lived through cut and cover along Cambie and had to walk out of first my condo (at 8th) and now my house (17th) straight into it for a few years. I'm sure the people on 10th can deal with it too, especially since they will still have access to their homes via the alleyways, and will no doubt be getting off 10th ASAP in any journeys they make.

Even so, cut-and-cover along 10th Avenue would take the wind out the Broadway flapheads, wouldn't it? (hmmm or would it?)

TransitJack
Jun 24, 2010, 7:01 PM
These 120 business owners seem to think that a $2B + spent on a line should service their operations. I think they need to understand that most commuters on Broadway care more about getting from A - B and not leisurely window shopping from the bus/train.

racc
Jun 24, 2010, 7:08 PM
Look how long it took to re-surface 10 blocks of Granville street. This didn't require major moves of power conduits, sewer lines, water lines, cable conduits, natural gas lines &tc. to make way for LRT tracks on Granville either. Just new sidewalks, curbs and asphalt. And some granite accents and fancy lighting. The new trolley wires are still being installed, but the trolleys won't be back on Granville until September (I think)
And on Granville, they were able to close the street to traffic during the construction. On Broadway, they pretty much have to keep one or two lanes of traffic open during construction for at least the buses and other traffic. This will double or triple the construction time.

cabotp
Jun 24, 2010, 8:02 PM
These 120 business owners seem to think that a $2B + spent on a line should service their operations. I think they need to understand that most commuters on Broadway care more about getting from A - B and not leisurely window shopping from the bus/train.

Yup. They say they don't want skytrain as they fear that it will cause massive construction disruption. Of course they are assuming it will be built on Broadway. So they want surface rail instead which they think won't have any disruption.

They also don't want a train underground because they want people too look at their stores while riding the train down Broadway.

Now I'm not sure about everyone else. Personally in all my life of commuting whether I was driving or taking transit. I have never looked at a store and thought, "Hey I should stop in and get some new clothes or I sure do need some new shoes." Every time I've gone to a store on Broadway it is because my sole purpose was to go to that store. So even if I was on a train underground. I'd still be heading for that store. If a store is only surviving financially because people might stop by on while commuting. That store as bigger problems.

TransitJack
Jun 24, 2010, 8:09 PM
Yup. They say they don't want skytrain as they fear that it will cause massive construction disruption. Of course they are assuming it will be built on Broadway. So they want surface rail instead which they think won't have any disruption.

They also don't want a train underground because they want people too look at their stores while riding the train down Broadway.

Now I'm not sure about everyone else. Personally in all my life of commuting whether I was driving or taking transit. I have never looked at a store and thought, "Hey I should stop in and get some new clothes or I sure do need some new shoes." Every time I've gone to a store on Broadway it is because my sole purpose was to go to that store. So even if I was on a train underground. I'd still be heading for that store. If a store is only surviving financially because people might stop by on while commuting. That store as bigger problems.

They don't get that underground will be a few years of disruption, or a few months per block at a time... versus disruption for ever if a street option is used.

mr.x
Jun 24, 2010, 9:11 PM
These 120 business owners seem to think that a $2B + spent on a line should service their operations. I think they need to understand that most commuters on Broadway care more about getting from A - B and not leisurely window shopping from the bus/train.

Ohhh, great point...I'll add it to the post I'm making.

mr.x
Jun 24, 2010, 9:57 PM
Apparently, according to the LRT activists, the St. Clair LRT project in Toronto was merely a road project.:koko:

WarrenC12
Jun 24, 2010, 10:08 PM
May I ask a question, please: What does BARSTA stand for?

Stands for: Business and Residents Association for Sustainable Transportation Alternatives

Sounds like a lobby group.. badly disguised as concerned citizens and businesses in the Broadway area.

Much like the nefarious Skytrain lobby. :sly:

tybuilding
Jun 25, 2010, 12:36 AM
Our good friend is at it again:

http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/broadway-merchants-want-light-rail-not-skytrain-down-business-corridor/

I left a comment about construction woes for the Toronto LRT line but it was deleted. :rolleyes:

I like Donna Dobo's comment.. she wants it all. Like one of those old ladies at Safeway "I want all of my groceries in one bag... but not too heavy!!" :koko:

I made the following comment. It will be interesting to see if it remains:

To be certain with any transit project there will be compromises made by the businesses along Broadway for an underground project or an at grade LRT system. Underground will have to deal with holes for stations for a few years, either a cut an cover method (such as Cambie) or TBM (such as in downtown) or disruption from surface construction for likely a 2 year period along the portions of the route.

Surface transit will also need to give space to the LRT system. I measured Toronto's St. Clair Street and its dimensions are similar to Broadway so it is possible with a few exceptions. Toronto St. Clair street has an LRT in the middle of the road with an 8-9m right of way depending if it a station or not. The station platforms at intersections are opposite sides of the intersections. Overall dimensions of St. Clair is 26m from curb to curb with room for a platform in one direction, 4 travel lanes and one turn lane. There are 4 travel lanes for cars (or 2 and 2 with parking).

Broadway would be similar. Broadway at Oak measures 28m so it will fit well there. Broadway at Granville measures 24 m there so the left turn lane will have to be taken away there.

Overall Broadway will turn into a 4 lane road with no parking or a 2 lane road with parking (or restrictions based on time) in the busy stretch.

Further west at (west of McDonald) the roadway narrows. Currently at McDonald there are 4 travel lanes at the intersection or reduced to 2 lanes with parking away from major intersections. At McDonald the street measures 16.6m. With an LRT and station there would be 7m remaining for 2 lanes of travel with no turn lanes remaining. Left turns will need to be restricted along this entire stretch and the lights may need to be required to only be green in one direction.
In between blocks the roadway measures 17m in parking areas, with 8m right of way this will leave 9m or 2 travel lanes and one parking lane so one side of parking will be reduced from the current 2 sides.

mr.x
Jun 25, 2010, 12:49 AM
Today:



Donna Dobo, Director WBBA Says:
June 24, 2010 at 10:31 am

For the record:
West Broadway businesses have voted in favour of surface, electric transit transit with stops every 500 to 600 metres, for the proposed UBC line. We will not survive if we can not be seen.

There may be a number of possible technologies that fit. A modern Euro tram is one of them. We are concerned that Translink is studying a heavier version of light rail that is more than we need, is the wrong scale for the neighbourhood, and more expensive than necessary. Whatever technology is chosen there must be a plan to assist the businesses to survive the construction phase.

Thank you to Rail for the Valley for ongoing coverage on this issue that is vital to sustainable neighbourhoods.





And also, one of zwei's responses:

I’m sorry KC but you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Issues of St. Clair LRT were corrected by a chap in Toronto who knows a whole lot more about that issue, than me. Local knowledge trumps opinion from Vancouver. As for your other comments, you are so, so dated; in the 21st century transit is consumer driven. To be successful transit must be built with the consumer in mind. Not so with SkyTrain and RAV where the official line has always been: “You will get SkyTrain (RAV) whether you like it or not.”




Is it just me or is he now simply saying "no" to things without any explanation, not even asinine ones....anyone can do that.

I like how he said we need to be consumer driven, with regards to his whole asinine "wheee I can see the stores!". Well, the consumer likes to get to his destination a bit more quickly than what he claims...

The_Henry_Man
Jun 25, 2010, 6:09 AM
This is my response to Donna Dobo's post on RailfortheValley website:

-------

Donna Dobo wrote: ".....We want accessible surface electric transit that could be rapid bus or modern euro style light rail. Make it attractive to local traffic, sightseers and faster than the B-line for the long distance commuters.

We need the stops to be more frequent that the planned locations for skytrain stations, which a kilometre apart."

Donna, there's already a transit option that caters to local traffic, with stops at every 2-3 blocks that encourages passengers to check out stores on Broadway, and that's called THE #9 TROLLEY BUS. LRT on Broadway makes ABSOLUTELY no improvements over the current 99B, as Broadway cannot possibly allow LRT to have exclusive LRT that doesn't impede traffic in order to achieve speeds of over 70km/h. If you think the Broadway LRT on the surface on achieve speeds that's faster than Skytrain, you need to get your head out of the sand.

--------

I thought Donna has businesses on Broadway and is quite knowledge of areas around her. :sly: :koko:

wrenegade
Jun 25, 2010, 6:23 AM
About the only reason I'd like to see Gordo stick around is so that he can jam Skytrain down the throats of these idiots on West Broadway. Where is that quote/article from Mr. X? I'd love to leave a comment. How are these people so selfish to think of West Broadway as their own "neighbourhood". It's a major transportation corridor and the 2nd largest employment centre in Metro Vancouver (possibly the province). A couple billion dollar transit line isn't going to built to aid small business on West Broadway, it's to transport tens of thousands of people across the region to school and work, to the largest hospital in the province, etc (neighbourhood shopping is WAAAAAY down the list). All that aside, the alignment is likely going to be Along west 10th, and even a surface tram would create traffic "issues" at best, and a full-on nightmare at worst.

punface
Jun 25, 2010, 6:44 AM
Any business I see associated with this BARSTA nonsense is not getting a dime from me. Is that wrong?

mr.x
Jun 25, 2010, 7:20 AM
In his most recent blog post, I like how zwei says that if SkyTrain is built they will get rid of the trolleys and replace them with very polluting diesels for local service.....it seems as if he has forgotten that we already have polluting diesels on Broadway. It's called the 99.

These people are f-ing nuts.



Anyhow, with the Evergreen Line as SkyTrain and with the Canada Line's capacity issues it's almost certain that the Broadway West extension will be SkyTrain. It'll be expensive, but it's not like we need to find the money for it today...it won't be for a few years, after Evergreen. The only question is where SkyTrain on the Broadway corridor will stop (any of those alternate LRT proposals don't have a chance in hell imo).

cabotp
Jun 25, 2010, 8:17 AM
Stands for: Business and Residents Association for Sustainable Transportation Alternatives

Sounds like a lobby group.. badly disguised as concerned citizens and businesses in the Broadway area.

Much like the nefarious Skytrain lobby. :sly:


Speaking of the "Skytrain Lobby" I feel that I'm owed a few thousand dollars. I sure could use it right about now :haha:

cabotp
Jun 25, 2010, 8:34 AM
Is it just me or is he now simply saying "no" to things without any explanation, not even asinine ones....anyone can do that.

I like how he said we need to be consumer driven, with regards to his whole asinine "wheee I can see the stores!". Well, the consumer likes to get to his destination a bit more quickly than what he claims...

He always says that he has consulated an "expert" of some kind. Yet he never names that expert and if you ask him for the name he won't give it.

:gaah:

jsbertram
Jun 25, 2010, 4:03 PM
JB, I think you need to cut and paste your post, verbatim, to the RailForTheValley and the Province threads.
You've hit the nail squarely on the head.:tup:

The only other thing that would make your post perfect would be some illustrations to show people what it looks like at certain stages of disruption (e.g., how many lanes would be closed-off, locations of storage, machinery, equipment, etc). That would be enough to show people who aren't quite getting their head around the issue - At-Grade Is Very Disruptive Too!

Done.

Waiting to hear the sound of 'ding ding' heads exploding.

jsbertram
Jun 25, 2010, 4:28 PM
About the only reason I'd like to see Gordo stick around is so that he can jam Skytrain down the throats of these idiots on West Broadway. Where is that quote/article from Mr. X? I'd love to leave a comment. How are these people so selfish to think of West Broadway as their own "neighbourhood". It's a major transportation corridor and the 2nd largest employment centre in Metro Vancouver (possibly the province). A couple billion dollar transit line isn't going to built to aid small business on West Broadway, it's to transport tens of thousands of people across the region to school and work, to the largest hospital in the province, etc (neighbourhood shopping is WAAAAAY down the list). All that aside, the alignment is likely going to be Along west 10th, and even a surface tram would create traffic "issues" at best, and a full-on nightmare at worst.

I think when Gordo knows he's retiring or can't get re-elected, he can force SkyTrain to UBC through and not care if any BC Libs get re-elected in Vancouver. He may cause the next Lib candidate in Point Grey to lose their election, but he'll be enjoying his martinis & pension in Maui by then.
Of course, he'll have to time it so that construction is well under way before he leaves so that the next gov't can't simply cancel the Skytrain to UBC. Having it structured as a P3 would make it harder to pull the plug, otherwise the private partners would become gun-shy of doing any future P3s.

Mininari
Jun 25, 2010, 4:38 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/25/bc-translink-no-expansion-report.html


Heres an idea; in the spirit of 'jumping the queue,' any chance that Translink's being broke would result in the "promised" federal and provincial money going to constructing the UBC line instead?

Boy would that ruffle some feathers...

mr.x
Jun 25, 2010, 7:21 PM
THE ZWEI QUOTE OF THE DAY:


Remember, transit is built to move people and it must stop to satisfy customer needs.



FML.

mr.x
Jun 25, 2010, 7:34 PM
I think when Gordo knows he's retiring or can't get re-elected, he can force SkyTrain to UBC through and not care if any BC Libs get re-elected in Vancouver. He may cause the next Lib candidate in Point Grey to lose their election, but he'll be enjoying his martinis & pension in Maui by then.
Of course, he'll have to time it so that construction is well under way before he leaves so that the next gov't can't simply cancel the Skytrain to UBC. Having it structured as a P3 would make it harder to pull the plug, otherwise the private partners would become gun-shy of doing any future P3s.

Well, the next provincial election is in 2013...are we really going to start Broadway West that soon?

madmigs
Jun 26, 2010, 12:33 AM
Well, the next provincial election is in 2013...are we really going to start Broadway West that soon?

Let's hope!

huenthar
Jun 28, 2010, 10:41 AM
Brand new argument against BARSTA:

(drumroll...)

.
.
.

I hope BARSTA members west of MacDonald enjoying today's Greek Festival (and all the extra business and, more importantly, exposure) realize they will never get to have a street festival on Broadway ever again with a surface rail line...

(ka-ching!)

:P

jsbertram
Jun 28, 2010, 6:03 PM
Well, the next provincial election is in 2013...are we really going to start Broadway West that soon?

The Phase II consulting (Be Part of the Plan) is supposed to be done in 2011, so that gives Gordo & company and Gregor & company some time to do the political spin on building the UBC line. It may be announced before or during the 2013 election and hopefully Evergreen will be under construction at the time so PoCo and Coq won't go ballisitic (you like THEM more then ME!)

If Gordo & company lose, the next BC Gov't may delay or cancel the UBC Line, but with Evergreen under construction they will have to let it get finished.

WarrenC12
Jun 28, 2010, 6:49 PM
The Phase II consulting (Be Part of the Plan) is supposed to be done in 2011, so that gives Gordo & company and Gregor & company some time to do the political spin on building the UBC line. It may be announced before or during the 2013 election and hopefully Evergreen will be under construction at the time so PoCo and Coq won't go ballisitic (you like THEM more then ME!)

If Gordo & company lose, the next BC Gov't may delay or cancel the UBC Line, but with Evergreen under construction they will have to let it get finished.

The NDP certainly talk the talk on public transit. I'm not sure the UBC line is one of the things "at risk" if they somehow manage to take over.

mr.x
Jun 28, 2010, 7:00 PM
^ well, the candidate the NDP put in West Point Grey last time was Mel....one of his "platforms" was against SkyTrain for the same asinine reasons, and eversince he has been working the the LRT nuts.

With that said, the Evergreen Line will make it much more necessary to have Broadway West as SkyTrain.

WarrenC12
Jun 28, 2010, 7:34 PM
^ well, the candidate the NDP put in West Point Grey last time was Mel....one of his "platforms" was against SkyTrain for the same asinine reasons, and eversince he has been working the the LRT nuts.

With that said, the Evergreen Line will make it much more necessary to have Broadway West as SkyTrain.

I thought Mel ran as an independent. Boy the NDP are desperate.

The good thing in the case of transit through the West Side is that these large capital projects are provincially driven anyway, regardless of party.

The bad part of that is a half-baked M-Line by Glen Clark through a bunch of NDP ridings. You can argue it was the first segment of a UBC to Poco line, but still, UBC to Broadway or downtown to the Airport should have been built first.

lightrail
Jun 28, 2010, 7:57 PM
I don't really understand why we're wasting money deciding on technology. It seems to be a given to me. Here's why.

Skytrain has been determined to be the best business case option for Evergreen. Presumably on interlining, speed and capacity verse construction cost. This is for a line that is expected to generated only 25,000 riders per day.

Now to Broadway. Why would anybody with at least half a brain pick anything less than Skytrain for Broadway, where the expected ridership is 200,000 people per day? What kind of insane thinking does it take to determine that a line carrying 25,000 people a day requires SkyTrain technology, while I line carrying 200,000 per day can make do with light rail.

Can you imagine if light rail is picked for broadway?

Tri-cities get to spread out in luxury, put their bags on seats and relax and enjoy a nice fast run to Broadway-Commerical. Now comes the fun, to go down to street level, cross some lanes of traffic to a small and inadequate platform and then fight to get on an overcrowded LRT for a slow ride down broadway. Oh, look, the LRT is stopped because some moron is illegally turning left.

Sorry, but the whole idea of LRT down Broadway, given the Evergreen decision, just seems pointless to me.

Some people, and by some people, I mean translink planners, have this nostalgic romantic notion of streetcars running down the middle of streets somehow make those street more human friendly. GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD. This is not Europe, this is North America. What works in Europe does not necessarily work here. Besides, most European cities have much less traffic and larger cities (of the size of Vancouver) have underground lines in congested areas.

Zassk
Jun 28, 2010, 8:27 PM
To me there are only two real possibilities, and both involve tunneling.

1) Bombardier wins contract, builds line as an extension of Millennium Line, and probably subcontracts the tunnel construction to SNC-Lavalin (as was done for M-Line guideway).

2) SNC-Lavalin wins contract, builds the tunnel itself, and ties the track to Canada Line (maybe 4-car Rotems). Bombardier is subcontracted for a 2.5 km extension of M-Line from VCC to Cambie.

Before you scoff at #2, consider that SNC-Lavalin can offer a no-transfer ride between downtown and Broadway/UBC, which Bombardier is unable to offer. Obviously this would require some changes like downtown station expansions.

SNC-Lavalin will probably be involved in this project no matter what (either as prime or subcontractor), so I would expect them to submit some kind of proposal that leverages their Canada Line.

To me, this is the only conceivable proposal that could cause things to turn out differently than we expect.

mr.x
Jun 28, 2010, 9:38 PM
To me there are only two real possibilities, and both involve tunneling.

1) Bombardier wins contract, builds line as an extension of Millennium Line, and probably subcontracts the tunnel construction to SNC-Lavalin (as was done for M-Line guideway).


2) SNC-Lavalin wins contract, builds the tunnel itself, and ties the track to Canada Line (maybe 4-car Rotems). Bombardier is subcontracted for a 2.5 km extension of M-Line from VCC to Cambie.

Before you scoff at #2, consider that SNC-Lavalin can offer a no-transfer ride between downtown and Broadway/UBC, which Bombardier is unable to offer. Obviously this would require some changes like downtown station expansions.

SNC-Lavalin will probably be involved in this project no matter what (either as prime or subcontractor), so I would expect them to submit some kind of proposal that leverages their Canada Line.

To me, this is the only conceivable proposal that could cause things to turn out differently than we expect.

1) Yes.

2) No. The main issue with the Broadway West extension is cost. Attempting to tie it with the Canada Line would only increase costs even more.

And it's not worth the 9-figure plus cost to make it an extension of the Canada Line, not to mention that SkyTrain and the Canada Line Rotem's are not compatible at all...different propulsion systems, track size, etc.

Having an interchange between Broadway West SkyTrain and the Canada Line at Broadway/Cambie/City Hall would be enough leverage for SNC-Lavalin as is...there's going to be a huge wave in new ridership on the Canada Line with the future interchange/transfer (which I think could push the Canada Line to max. capacity very quickly), and going beyond that would mean the Canada Line would take in far more than it can chew.

In some cases, like Lougheed Station, the benefits outweigh the costs of having a seamless transferless train ride. But this is not a case.


By the time the Broadway West extension is built, expect to see 200,000 passengers per day within a year of opening.


And on the topic of the future interchange at Broadway/Cambie, the underground passageways between both stations need to be big and wide.

deasine
Jun 28, 2010, 9:47 PM
2) SNC-Lavalin wins contract, builds the tunnel itself, and ties the track to Canada Line (maybe 4-car Rotems). Bombardier is subcontracted for a 2.5 km extension of M-Line from VCC to Cambie.

Before you scoff at #2, consider that SNC-Lavalin can offer a no-transfer ride between downtown and Broadway/UBC, which Bombardier is unable to offer. Obviously this would require some changes like downtown station expansions.

Won't be happening. The UBC Line is one project from UBC to Commercial. The only thing that could happen besides the Millennium Line extension, if RRT-only is chosen, is a separate "UBC Line" from Commercial to UBC that does not involve the Millennium Line.

The Canada Line did not have this kind of integration built in mind and it would be a huge pain to dig up Cambie again in order to create tracks to branch of the Canada Line. Like I said in the other threads, even though many other systems in the world, including the West Coast Express, use train cars longer than the platforms, the problem with using longer trains on the Canada Line is the close proximity between the switch tracks and the platform. At Waterfront Station, I don't think a four-car ROTEM can fit as part of the train will still be on the switch track and expanding Waterfront would be an engineering challenge.

We can also discuss the cons with interlining systems like that. The Canada Line is already interlined: Airport and Richmond branches. At those branches, the frequencies are restricted. If you add a Canada Line branch off to UBC, you create an even greater restriction for the Airport and Richmond Branches, and another restriction on the Broadway portion in terms of frequency.

I can see the costs of doing this would be significantly higher than the cost of extending the Millennium Line.

mr.x
Jun 28, 2010, 9:49 PM
And for the 496th time, I shall mention how it sucks that the Canada Line lacks any sort of flexibility for expansion and integration. :D

Zassk
Jun 28, 2010, 9:52 PM
^ Of course there are issues, but don't you expect SNC-Lavalin would submit a bid of some kind that uses the same technology as they built last time (whether there is any interlining or not)? Perhaps all the way to Commercial as you say?

mr.x
Jun 28, 2010, 9:59 PM
^ Of course there are issues, but don't you expect SNC-Lavalin would submit a bid of some kind that uses the same technology as they built last time (whether there is any interlining or not)? Perhaps all the way to Commercial as you say?

No. The difference is that this time around we're not telling them to design it for us, rather we the public are designing it ourselves and determining what this line should be. Translink/MoT will release RFP for bids to extend the Millennium Line SkyTrain infrastructure to Broadway West/UBC. It won't be anywhere as open ended as the Canada Line design phase.

Not to mention that SNC-Lavalin would likely realize the costs are not worth the benefits, and it would also only make the whole P3 situation much more complex.

TransitJack
Jun 28, 2010, 11:33 PM
No. The difference is that this time around we're not telling them to design it for us, rather we the public are designing it ourselves and determining what this line should be. Translink/MoT will release RFP for bids to extend the Millennium Line SkyTrain infrastructure to Broadway West/UBC. It won't be anywhere as open ended as the Canada Line design phase.

Not to mention that SNC-Lavalin would likely realize the costs are not worth the benefits, and it would also only make the whole P3 situation much more complex.

I could "potentially" see Broadway Line being a P3, like Canada line, with SNC being an interested party.

If SNC were to win the bidding process I doubt the C line and Broadway line would be interchanged for passenger service, however, a track connecting them could be built for the sole purpose of utilizing the existing C Line OMC.

If the Libs are in power and push the Broadway line through, I cannot see them abandoning their P3 ideology, especially considering the up-front cash a private company brings to the table. Edit: A big part of any bid by SNC I think would seek to spend money on said track connection and thus lowering bid due to no OMC req'd.

mr.x
Jun 28, 2010, 11:46 PM
I could "potentially" see Broadway Line being a P3, like Canada line, with SNC being an interested party.

If SNC were to win the bidding process I doubt the C line and Broadway line would be interchanged for passenger service, however, a track connecting them could be built for the sole purpose of utilizing the existing C Line OMC.

If the Libs are in power and push the Broadway line through, I cannot see them abandoning their P3 ideology, especially considering the up-front cash a private company brings to the table. Edit: A big part of any bid by SNC I think would seek to spend money on said track connection and thus lowering bid due to no OMC req'd.

I disagree very much to this post.

It is extremely unlikely. You would be adding hundreds and hundreds of millions in cost to make this happen. Do remember that the Canada Line south of Broadway is a shallow stacked tunnel, it would be extremely expensive to connect it with the Canada Line.

And if you interline it with the Canada Line, that means you can't interline it with SkyTrain Millennium. The Millennium Line ridership from the east will be much, much greater than interlined ridership from the Canada Line.


The Canada Line OMC at Bridgeport will have barely enough space (or even expansion space) in the future to accommodate the cars needed for the Canada Line's future demands nevermind the need to be the storage yard for an extension that would see 150,000 plus daily passengers.


The Millennium Line is the most logical and only extension option.

TransitJack
Jun 28, 2010, 11:51 PM
I disagree very much to this post.

It is extremely unlikely. You would be adding hundreds and hundreds of millions in cost to make this happen. Do remember that the Canada Line south of Broadway is a shallow stacked tunnel, it would be extremely expensive to connect it with the Canada Line.

And if you interline it with the Canada Line, that means you can't interline it with SkyTrain Millennium. The Millennium Line ridership from the east will be much, much greater than interlined ridership from the Canada Line.


The Canada Line OMC at Bridgeport will have barely enough space (or even expansion space) in the future to accommodate the cars needed for the Canada Line's future demands nevermind the need to be the storage yard for an extension that would see 150,000 plus daily passengers.


The Millennium Line is the most logical and only extension option.

100's of millions?

trofirhen
Jun 29, 2010, 12:06 AM
I could "potentially" see Broadway Line being a P3, like Canada line, with SNC being an interested party.

If SNC were to win the bidding process I doubt the C line and Broadway line would be interchanged for passenger service, however, a track connecting them could be built for the sole purpose of utilizing the existing C Line OMC.

If the Libs are in power and push the Broadway line through, I cannot see them abandoning their P3 ideology, especially considering the up-front cash a private company brings to the table. Edit: A big part of any bid by SNC I think would seek to spend money on said track connection and thus lowering bid due to no OMC req'd.

Excuse me, but I think that it is essential to the system to interline it as an extension of the Lillenium Line (as Mr. X said, huge volumes of east-west communters) and connect with the Canada line somewhere.

I agree that it will be expensive, but nobody promised us a rose garden. We'll have to lobby the feds really hard or something, but there is no other way than extending the M-Line West, with a junction on the C-Line. To do otherwise would be a fatal "white elephant" blunder.

This is only my opinion, of course. Others may or may not agree, I don't know.

mr.x
Jun 29, 2010, 12:23 AM
100's of millions?

It will be in he 9-figures. Consider it's underground, there are nearby businesses and homes to consider, it's a stacked tunnel....the Canada Line isn't designed for this, they would have to find a location suitable for where the switch can be located. And after that, they would have to reduce the grade of the Canada Line track for that to happen.

It's not worth the cost at all. We can work to eliminate transfers that make sense like the Evergreen to Millennium. But this doesn't make sense one bit.

Above all, the ridership from the East is where the extension will get most of its ridership. NOT from the Canada Line, though it will no doubt add significant ridership to the Millennium but that's why (as I have previously said) that the transfer/exchange corridors at Broadway/Cambie needs to be wide enough for the projected ridership.



Excuse me, but I think that it is essential to the system to interline it as an extension of the Lillenium Line (as Mr. X said, huge volumes of east-west communters) and connect with the Canada line somewhere.

I agree that it will be expensive, but nobody promised us a rose garden. We'll have to lobby the feds really hard or something, but there is no other way than extending the M-Line West, with a junction on the C-Line. To do otherwise would be a fatal "white elephant" blunder.

This is only my opinion, of course. Others may or may not agree, I don't know.

I would rather not see the Canada Line connect anywhere....a few decades from now it won't be able to handle any major ridership growth.

trofirhen
Jun 29, 2010, 12:37 AM
I would rather not see the Canada Line connect anywhere....a few decades from now it won't be able to handle any major ridership growth.

I was thinking that a connection point at, for example, City Hall station would be good for people who head south from downtown or the West End to UBC on C-Line. (or who head North on it, and want to go to UBC)

Not to have a connection strikes me as rather strange, like leaving a vital element out of the system, although I agree that the Canada Line has been a bigger success than anyone imagined.

Maybe we'll have to bite the bullet, and put in more cars with 1.5 minute headways at rush hour on the C-Line. They do that in some European cities.
I think that having the whole system as intgrated - and extensive - as possible - is vital, but I DO see your point.

That - or knock out the platform walls for three-car trains; (more $$$$$$$ yes, I know !!)

Put it ths way .......... if we don't connect C-Line and M-Line, we'll regret it sorely later on, in my opinion.

mr.x
Jun 29, 2010, 12:48 AM
I was thinking that a connection point at, for example, City Hall station would be good for people who head south from downtown or the West End to UBC on C-Line. (or who head North on it, and want to go to UBC)

Not to have a connection strikes me as rather strange, like leaving a vital element out of the system, although I agree that the Canada Line has been a bigger success than anyone imagined.

Maybe we'll have to bite the bullet, and put in more cars with 1.5 minute headways at rush hour on the C-Line. They do that in some European cities.
I think that having the whole system as intgrated - and extensive - as possible - is vital, but I DO see your point.

That - or knock out the platform walls for three-car trains; (more $$$$$$$ yes, I know !!)

Put it ths way .......... if we don't connect C-Line and M-Line, we'll regret it sorely later on, in my opinion.

Actually, the Canada Line's City Hall Station was built in mind for a transfer passage to Millennium Line West. There's a knockout wall panel in the mezzaine. The problem, imo, is that it's a bit narrow. Maybe 10-12 feet in width?

In addition, the Crossroads development at the northwest corner of Cambie/Broadway has built in space for a future underground entrance for both the Canada Line and the Millennium Line.

TransitJack
Jun 29, 2010, 12:49 AM
I disagree very much to this post.

It is extremely unlikely. You would be adding hundreds and hundreds of millions in cost to make this happen. Do remember that the Canada Line south of Broadway is a shallow stacked tunnel, it would be extremely expensive to connect it with the Canada Line.

And if you interline it with the Canada Line, that means you can't interline it with SkyTrain Millennium. The Millennium Line ridership from the east will be much, much greater than interlined ridership from the Canada Line.


The Canada Line OMC at Bridgeport will have barely enough space (or even expansion space) in the future to accommodate the cars needed for the Canada Line's future demands nevermind the need to be the storage yard for an extension that would see 150,000 plus daily passengers.


The Millennium Line is the most logical and only extension option.

I wasn't advocating this as the preferred option I was simply referring to the previous post that suggested this could be one of many options financiers might propose.

I'm not sure why you lashed out quite so harshly, this forum is a discussion of transportation issues. My post was not critical, nor did I attack any view points.

trofirhen
Jun 29, 2010, 12:53 AM
Actually, the Canada Line's City Hall Station was built in mind for a transfer passage to Millennium Line West. There's a knockout wall panel in the mezzaine. The problem, imo, is that it's a bit narrow. Maybe 10-12 feet in width?

In addition, the Crossroads development at the northwest corner of Cambie/Broadway has built in space for a future underground entrance for both the Canada Line and the Millennium Line.
:previous:
Are you saying, therefore, that you agree that this link-up (in whatever configuration it takes) is possible and desirable, or are you still against any connection to Canada Line from Millenium Line? What is your stance on this, please?

mr.x
Jun 29, 2010, 12:53 AM
I wasn't advocating this as the preferred option I was simply referring to the previous post that suggested this could be one of many options financiers might propose.

I'm not sure why you lashed out quite so harshly, this forum is a discussion of transportation issues. My post was not critical, nor did I attack any view points.

Sleepless nights and a bit of caffeine can do that.

mr.x
Jun 29, 2010, 12:54 AM
:previous:
Are you saying, therefore, that you agree that this link-up (in whatever configuration it takes) is possible and desirable, or are you still against any connection to Canada Line from Millenium Line? What is your stance on this, please?

I'm for a walking connection between the Canada and Millennium Lines just like Broadway and Commercial Stations down the road.

trofirhen
Jun 29, 2010, 1:00 AM
I'm for a walking connection between the Canada and Millennium Lines just like Broadway and Commercial Stations down the road.

A walking connection: where people leave one train, go down a corridor (or whatever) to the other line? That sounds all fine and good to me. I though you meant no access AT ALL, and I could not understand why. Now I understand, I think.

punface
Jun 29, 2010, 1:05 AM
Brand new argument against BARSTA:
I hope BARSTA members west of MacDonald enjoying today's Greek Festival (and all the extra business and, more importantly, exposure) realize they will never get to have a street festival on Broadway ever again with a surface rail line...


Very good point. I think some BARSTA members sponsored Greek Day as well (not 100% sure of this.)