[punface]

After reading the feedback from the community consultations, I was surprised that there was in fact much less neighbourhood opposiition to the line than people have assumed. Translink noted this too, so I think they will take this into consideration when planning the line. I think the media still hangs onto that one person's "Creme de la Creme" comment at a public meeting nearly a decade ago now, and uses that to describe *everybody* west of Arbutus. I think it's a media myth.

My experience from attending a Dunbar-area consultation during the last round of UBC-Line consultations was that most residents already hate the B-Line (noise/speed/frequency/pollution) and would support proposed replacements that improve any of those areas. The biggest fear of the residents I shared a table with was an elevated Skytrain track, and their second biggest fear was anything on the ground that is more frequent than the existing B-Line. There was definitely a bit of "creme de la creme" attitude in their concerns - but I now think this works to the advantage of the fully-underground options.

Personally I like the combination alternatives (Skytrain/streetcar) as long as the Millennium Line goes to at least Arbutus ... but when surface streetcars were mentioned for the final segment the locals were not at all impressed.

I plan on attending one of the workshops next week ... hopefully it is as fun as the last one. :)

[madmigs]

My experience from attending a Dunbar-area consultation during the last round of UBC-Line consultations was that most residents already hate the B-Line (noise/speed/frequency/pollution) and would support proposed replacements that improve any of those areas. The biggest fear of the residents I shared a table with was an elevated Skytrain track, and their second biggest fear was anything on the ground that is more frequent than the existing B-Line. There was definitely a bit of "creme de la creme" attitude in their concerns - but I now think this works to the advantage of the fully-underground options.

Personally I like the combination alternatives (Skytrain/streetcar) as long as the Millennium Line goes to at least Arbutus ... but when surface streetcars were mentioned for the final segment the locals were not at all impressed.

I plan on attending one of the workshops next week ... hopefully it is as fun as the last one. :)

Good to hear, but I still see a lot of comments on articles from people in the area about the crime train, bringing lots more people to their neighborhoods, etc. At least it is great to know they are against above-ground stuff, but that seems entirely at odds with the so-called mayor of kits and his gang who seem to want ground-level LRT. And I don't think any of us want a raised guideway going to UBC, it wouldn't suit the neighborhood and would entirely ruin the look of the endowment lands to have this giant concrete track running through the middle of it.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Phase I - Expo line to New Westminster (1986)
Phase II - Extended to Scott Road (1990)
Phase III - Extended to King George (1994)

That was a non-starter because the largest ridership for the Canada Line was always YVR and South of Fraser.

The thing is that those phases are in logical places. Distinct phases don't sense on something like the Broadway line which is reasonably short, and will likely only contain one type of construction.

To mobilize and demobilize a tunnel boring machine is a massive endeavor, hence why many of them get left in the ground after a large job. If we want to phase construction on this job Translink may as well buy all the construction equipment because a large portion of the big ticket items will be left underground mothballed until the next phase of construction commences.

Once the TBM is in the ground you've basically committed to a full line since the unit cost will take such a dive after the few few km of tunnel are built that it will make sense to continue construction. The flipside of this is that the stub line is far less attractive when you look at the cost benefit ratio.

If we want to make this attractive we should just plan to do construction starting at VCC with 1 section under construction at any given time. Funding could be put into place as construction continues 1 station section at a time; with the expectation that the entire line will be built slowly. The tunnel can be furnished one section at a time allowing for the use advantages of early utilization and development of political capital, while some of the expenses can be put off to a later date and written down in cost.

This should also make it easier for the constructor to turn in a lower bid since they would have to have a stable amount of equipment on site, stable workforce and consistent cash flows.

[aberdeen5698]

To mobilize and demobilize a tunnel boring machine is a massive endeavor, hence why many of them get left in the ground after a large job.I'm no engineer, but I imagine that getting the tunnel boring machine into the ground for the Broadway extension of the Canada line won't be that big a deal since it will doubtless just start in at the east portal of the tunnel. And it's hard to see how extricating it at the cut-and-cover for the last station would be all that big a deal either.

If there's a real issue with regard to this, just leave the machine(s) in the ground until the extension is built. What's a TBM cost, anyway?

[Metro-One]

Good to hear, but I still see a lot of comments on articles from people in the area about the crime train, bringing lots more people to their neighborhoods, etc. At least it is great to know they are against above-ground stuff, but that seems entirely at odds with the so-called mayor of kits and his gang who seem to want ground-level LRT. And I don't think any of us want a raised guideway going to UBC, it wouldn't suit the neighborhood and would entirely ruin the look of the endowment lands to have this giant concrete track running through the middle of it.

Obviously a tunnel is the only option along Broadway but tunneling under the endownment lands themselves and through UBC would be a gigantic waste of money, an elevated, or even in areas an at grade rail (akin to around Templeton Station on the Canada Line) would be more than fine along this extension's western half (especially west of Blanca St.)

I honestly think that the Evergreen Line Project should also have had the first phase of the M line extension to the Broadway C-Line station tagged on with it. This would have further cemented skytrain as the technology of choice under Broadway.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'm no engineer, but I imagine that getting the tunnel boring machine into the ground for the Broadway extension of the Canada line won't be that big a deal since it will doubtless just start in at the east portal of the tunnel. And it's hard to see how extricating it at the cut-and-cover for the last station would be all that big a deal either.

If there's a real issue with regard to this, just leave the machine(s) in the ground until the extension is built. What's a TBM cost, anyway?

I'm not sure what they're worth new as I haven't had to deal with that end of the business yet. Used, they're dirt cheap due to the amount of wear that usually occurs on them. There used to be a site that had a whole bunch listed. The big ones went for about $2 mil. You would remanufacture the equipment before use, so maybe $4-5 mil. Pulling the equipment out of the ground in this case may be more than the used value of the equipment.

[aberdeen5698]

You would remanufacture the equipment before use, so maybe $4-5 mil. Pulling the equipment out of the ground in this case may be more than the used value of the equipment.That's a pittance in terms of the overall project cost, so just leaving them in the ground until we're ready to extend the line past, say, Arbutus seems like a perfectly viable option.

[Alex Mackinnon]

It's not that much, but I would assume new equipment with 2 tunnels run in parallel.

As a disclaimer I'm from a mining background and haven't worked on any transportation tunnels before, so I'm not sure where all the cost is coming from in this kind of work. 10km of mining tunnels would probably be around $200-400 mil in solid ground. A few hundred million in shotcrete, grout and rock bolts and call it a day.

[officedweller]

I don't get this compromise choice of stopping the line at Granville or Arbutus. Why pick that point?

Granville Street is typically viewed as the western end of the Broadway Office Corridor. An extra push to Arbutus would link it to the Arbutus corridor (i.e. this was planned pre-Canada Line, but would still provide a useful link to the future streetcar.) West of Granville or Arbutus, Broadway is thought of as a neighborhood shopping street.

Also, if I recall correctly, the NDP provincial government of the day also committed to funding the M-Line only as far west as Granville.

I could see SkyTrain to Arbutus and LRT from there to UBC and south to Kerrisdale.

[Alex Mackinnon]

People generally pick Arbutus as a logical end as it's past most of the congestion on Central Broadway.

[Gordon]

The one thing with Arbutus as a terminus for the Broadway Line, the immediate area is fully developed so it may be difficult to find space for a proper bus loop with the space required for articulated buses.

[Jebby]

To me it just doesn't make long term sense to end it at arbutus. It's going to be extended to UBC eventually so why not do it from the beginning?

[Zassk]

At Arbutus, you're only 4 km short of the UEL (roughly the same length as the YVR spur). It really doesn't make sense to leave out this 4 km from the planning, whether it has to be built in phases or not. This segment connects the #2 and #3 transit destinations in Metro Van, and would far exceed ridership at the other four "tails" in the SkyTrain network. UBC can certainly pay for the remaining 2 km or so from the border of the UEL into the central campus.

[wrenegade]

You sorta lose a lot of the efficiency you gain with skytrain by making riders switch to a bus again. I will recognize that you do gain the extra distance between Broadway/Commercial and Arbutus at a higher speed (skytrain) but you still have to make the switch. It is also extremely short-sighted as UBC is the fastest growing area (and one of the largest employment hubs) in the lower mainland.

[Spork]

Leave it to the planners. The fact is that it is either ready for it or it isn't. There's no point in saying that we may as well do it now. If we said that about everything, we would be overbuilding all of our infrastructure and paying the depreciation on it before it is even of any incremental use.

[crazyjoeda]

You sorta lose a lot of the efficiency you gain with skytrain by making riders switch to a bus again. I will recognize that you do gain the extra distance between Broadway/Commercial and Arbutus at a higher speed (skytrain) but you still have to make the switch. It is also extremely short-sighted as UBC is the fastest growing area (and one of the largest employment hubs) in the lower mainland.

Most importantly it's more efficient and cheaper to build it all at once. Unlike the Canada Line this has to be a skytrain extension no needless transfer to some other transit technology, and lets make sure the platforms are long enough. If you're going to do it, do it right!

[CLC]

Leave it to the planners. The fact is that it is either ready for it or it isn't. There's no point in saying that we may as well do it now. If we said that about everything, we would be overbuilding all of our infrastructure and paying the depreciation on it before it is even of any incremental use.

Reminded me about the old news that Metro Vancouver directors have put UBC rapid transit below Evergreen Line (first priority), rapid transit expansion in Surrey & Langley and Broadway corridor as far as Arbutus Street(tied second).
:haha:

[wrenegade]

Leave it to the planners. The fact is that it is either ready for it or it isn't. There's no point in saying that we may as well do it now. If we said that about everything, we would be overbuilding all of our infrastructure and paying the depreciation on it before it is even of any incremental use.

The Broadway corridor was ready for this line 10 years ago. It is the busiest bus route in North America and would likely be revenue positive from day one of operations. The Evergreen Line and any Surrey extensions will lose money for at least 10 years. It is more important to build for the density we have now as opposed to where we project it to grow (although as previously mentioned, the UBC area is also the fastest growing area in the lower mainland). It seems absolutely stupid to build either the Evergreen Line or any Surrey extension first. Apologies to those living in the Tri-cities, while you guys do deserve a Skytrain line, not before the Broadway/UBC corridor.

[DKaz]

Extending the line to Arbutus would allow the line to hook up what we know will eventually be a tram and commuter rail line down Arbutus. I didn't realize however that UBC was just another 4km away. Makes sense to just go all the way.

[tybuilding]

Extending the line to Arbutus would allow the line to hook up what we know will eventually be a tram and commuter rail line down Arbutus. I didn't realize however that UBC was just another 4km away. Makes sense to just go all the way.

4.57 km from Arbutus to Blanca
6.9 km from Arbutus to Westbrook Mall
7.3 km from Arbutus to East Mall

[dubsH]

Leave it to the planners. The fact is that it is either ready for it or it isn't. There's no point in saying that we may as well do it now. If we said that about everything, we would be overbuilding all of our infrastructure and paying the depreciation on it before it is even of any incremental use.

Yes, but clearly the ridership on the 99B-Line west of Arbutus exceeds that of the 97B-Line on all days from September to April, and I am sure the numbers are at least similar during the summer (Coquitlam/Surrey aren't the only places growing). I would not call a full extension to UBC an "overbuilding of infrastructure", especially since it was certainly an option in the Broadway corridor study over 10 years ago.

UBC should certainly pay for its portion west of Blanca (hence, only more "4km" needed to hook Arbutus up with Blanca), and students should also pay a bit more on their UPass to cover additional operation and maintenance costs. A $5/month increase to the UPass results in an additional $200000/month for TransLink, and I think students will be more than willing to pay that price for faster/better service.

[Alex Mackinnon]

If I recall correctly Skytrain Ops and Maintenance costs are lower per passenger. They'd be paying down the increased capital costs.

[NucksFanInVan]

It would be great if we could build all the way to UBC.

It would also be great if I could afford a single-family home in Point Grey.

These thoughts have two things in common: they're goals. The stories of projects that tried to overreach their limits and fell into dust are legion (try googling "Tower of Babel").

Plan for the long term, build for the short term, that should be our mantra.

Phase 1 should be planning grade-separated rapid transit all the way to UBC so that we can reserve ROWs, relocate utilities as they are replaced, integrate the design into redevelopment, etc. This is where we can be efficient, and why the LRT lobby can quote great projects that built for cheap along reserved right-of-ways. Alignment, grade separation, and station spacing need to be planned all the way right from the beginning.

Phase 2 should be building the first link from the useless VCC stub to Cambie. Network integration with the Canada Line should be an absolute no-brainer, especially if (N)evergreen feeds more people into the ridiculously crowded Broadway/Commercial transfer hub. Offsetting at-capacity B-Line traffic is just a bonus.

Phase 3 should be building Cambie to Arbutus. Anyone who questions "why Arbutus" obviously has never taken the B-Line as it does the crawl thru Central Broadway. If you take the train past the stoplight-at-every-block congestion, service becomes faster and more reliable for everyone (relative to the existing B-Line), even those continuing west via a bus transfer. Once Phase 3 is complete, you could re-introduce a peak-period non-stop high-frequency shuttle from UBC to Arbutus station.

Phase 4 is extending the train to UBC. I'll probably never see it but at least we'd have the plan in place.

In summary: failing to plan is planning to fail. But so is trying to choke down such a major expansion in one bite... I predict the billions required to get all the way to UBC is going to be too rich a plum to make it through the political gauntlet. Unless of course the province wakes up and agrees to underwrite 100% of the capital costs (good luck with that!).

Let's proceed with as many phases as we can without throwing fiscal responsibility to the winds.

(For the record - yes we should try to combine my phases 2 and 3!)

[aberdeen5698]

Plan for the long term, build for the short term, that should be our mantra.Very well stated post! :tup:

[punface]

The details of each alternative design are now up at: http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Public-Consultation/UBC-Line-Rapid-Transit-Study.aspx

(I'm pretty sure it said "check back March 30th" when I looked this morning.)

[nname]

The consultation documents are online now.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/public_consultation/ubc_study/UBC%20Line%20RT%20Study%20Design%20Guide.ashx
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/public_consultation/ubc_study/UBC%20Line%20RT%20Study%20Evaluation%20Summary.ashx

[Spork]

I'm not disputing the fact that the corridor is ready for the line or not. It is most definitely ready. I took that bus 5 days a week for 2 years *against* rush hour, and that was hell enough. Nor am I disputing if the E-line should go first - in an ideal world it would not.

I am simply stating that I don't think that we can decide whether or not the extra push should be made to build all of the way to UBC at this time. There are a couple of dozen options for sure, and there are extra risks that go along with each of those. Do we even have any evidence of what the ridership from Arbutus to UBC is by each hour of the day? That would tell us whether or not RRT would make sense for that stretch.

This isn't about wants, it is about needs. If it were about wants, we may as well have a charming light rail system linking local shopping centres for grandmothers to ride all day long.

[CLC]

(I'm pretty sure it said "check back March 30th" when I looked this morning.)
You memory was correct!:haha:

I didn't expect they actually put estimated travel time and ridership estimation already.

I am very skeptical about the optimistic travel time of all ground options:slob:

[Whalleyboy]

The Broadway corridor was ready for this line 10 years ago. It is the busiest bus route in North America and would likely be revenue positive from day one of operations. The Evergreen Line and any Surrey extensions will lose money for at least 10 years. It is more important to build for the density we have now as opposed to where we project it to grow (although as previously mentioned, the UBC area is also the fastest growing area in the lower mainland). It seems absolutely stupid to build either the Evergreen Line or any Surrey extension first. Apologies to those living in the Tri-cities, while you guys do deserve a Skytrain line, not before the Broadway/UBC corridor.

I would believe that ubc would actually lose money unlike surrey and tri cities would. well most people in Surrey and the tri cities traveling out to vancouver pay 3 zones i bet majority along the ubc have u-passes which are way cheaper last time i looked.
While i'd love to see all done now and they all need it now. Surrey and tri cities shouldnt be put behind ubc route just cause it shows more ridership. I mean for upass its liek 25$ a 3 zone pass for and adult is 150$ so for ever 1 3 zone pass it takes about 6 u passes.

[squeezied]

methinks we'll be hearing more of zwei in the upcoming days!

[jlousa]

The u-pass might be cheap but when there are 40K+ of them just for students that's a very large and stable revenue. The line would also serve a population of what is expected to be ~50K upon buildout as well as a large amount of employees working there. Remember this is only for the last 4km of the line ($400-600M) or so investment. It would be revenue positive from day one, and this is not even counting any contribution that UBC/UEL would be expected to make.

[squeezied]

I would believe that ubc would actually lose money unlike surrey and tri cities would. well most people in Surrey and the tri cities traveling out to vancouver pay 3 zones i bet majority along the ubc have u-passes which are way cheaper last time i looked.
While i'd love to see all done now and they all need it now. Surrey and tri cities shouldnt be put behind ubc route just cause it shows more ridership. I mean for upass its liek 25$ a 3 zone pass for and adult is 150$ so for ever 1 3 zone pass it takes about 6 u passes.

With that logic, suburban buses travelling to the city should a cash cow and urban buses should be heavily subsidized. That is hardly the case. The complete opposite is true.

You'd be mistaken if you think the majority travelling along broadway is ubc bound. Don't forget about the central Broadway, which is the second largest transit destination after downtown (ubc is the third). I'm quite sure there are people from Surrey travelling to central Broadway (not so much vice versa).

[Whalleyboy]

With that logic, suburban buses travelling to the city should a cash cow and urban buses should be heavily subsidized. That is hardly the case. The complete opposite is true.

You'd be mistaken if you think the majority travelling along broadway is ubc bound. Don't forget about the central Broadway, which is the second largest transit destination after downtown (ubc is the third). I'm quite sure there are people from Surrey travelling to central Broadway (not so much vice versa).
just note every person from surrey traveling out there has to travel back.

[CLC]

methinks we'll be hearing more of zwei in the upcoming days!

It still puzzles me whether Zwei and "EvilEye" are the same person. In Zwei new blog, one of the few visitors who regularly leaves comments is EvilEye!

[squeezied]

just note every person from surrey traveling out there has to travel back.

Thanks, I know. I guess I wasn't too clear on my last sentence. My point was that the UBC line will service the whole region. Those from Surrey need to commute along Broadway as well as those from Burnaby, Tri Cities, etc, thereby affirming my point that central Broadway as UBC are major transit destinations. You won't be seeing all those who commute to Broadway return back to Surrey.

But the main point was that the UBC line will not be exclusively for UBC students. Much of those who will commute along Broadway will require a 2 or 3 zone regular fare ticket or pass.

[squeezied]

It still puzzles me whether Zwei and "EvilEye" are the same person. In Zwei new blog, one of the few visitors who regularly leaves comments is EvilEye!

I always though EvilEye and Zwei were the same person, unless someone is impersonating him. I haven't visited his site in 4 months, though I have a feeling I will be soon haha.

[flight_from_kamakura]

man, i'm so torn. like on the one hand, i want to see the traffic calming and pedestrian orientation that lrt brings. on the other hand, alrt just work so much better as rapid transit, enough to warrant the high costs. the combo option 1 with lrt from arbutus is very tempting, and with the fervency of neighborhood opposition to alrt through point grey, it seems like a serious contender. lots to think about. personally, i'd probably vote for the underground option with the serious calming measures proposed, and just bet on the future. but if the combo option did go through, especially considering the possibility for linking an east/west arbutus lrt terminus with a north/south one (and underground), i could really imagine liking what it might do to the neighborhood. if we do go street rail from arbutus, i could envision eventual rail down 4th deep into ubc, along 41st to dunbar (maybe a loop), etc. - the sort of stuff that's hard to justify when you're funneling everything onto a $3-4 billion spine.

also, if it does go rrt, seems to me that the choice between options is a pretty serious one. connecting glen/clark station sort of serving gnw and vcc makes sense to serve those joints and especially to keep consistency in the system, but it sees losses on the denser residential, especially as broadway there is built out. so would we want an entirely new line from commercial to ubc? the visitor in me would drool for that ("you are on a UBC line train") but the commuter in me would fire it tiresome.

[Whalleyboy]

Thanks, I know. I guess I wasn't too clear on my last sentence. My point was that the UBC line will service the whole region. Those from Surrey need to commute along Broadway as well as those from Burnaby, Tri Cities, etc, thereby affirming my point that central Broadway as UBC are major transit destinations. You won't be seeing all those who commute to Broadway return back to Surrey.

But the main point was that the UBC line will not be exclusively for UBC students. Much of those who will commute along Broadway will require a 2 or 3 zone regular fare ticket or pass.

but many of those 3 zone riders wont want to take the trip since most dont want to bus to the skytrain. Why bus and skytrain when you can drive to that place faster then the bus can get you to skytrain? thats not including waiting time either

[nname]

One thing I couldn't get is the peak and daily ridership figure. For all cases, the peak ridership is so low for the daily ridership given...

Basically, they're saying.. for LRT 1 option, the peak load is just slightly higher than current 99 B-Line, but somehow it gets 109k daily ridership (compared to just 50k for the 99). For RRT, the peak load is about the same as the busiest section of Canada Line right now, and the daily ridership would be 146k (whereas Canada Line is around 110k).

And seems like RRT gets almost twice the peak load as LRT, would it imply that most of the difference in ridership come from peak hours? And for the peak load of LRT being just slightly higher than B-Line, would it also implies that LRT doesn't really get people out of driving (for long distance trips), even if the road capacity is reduced up to 50%?

[nname]

but many of those 3 zone riders wont want to take the trip since most dont want to bus to the skytrain. Why bus and skytrain when you can drive to that place faster then the bus can get you to skytrain? thats not including waiting time either

That's where park and ride becomes handy...

And if SkyTrain is built all the way to UBC, then the train would make up more time, as there isn't really any fast route once you get past Nanaimo...

[Whalleyboy]

yeah but why spend over 10$ to park and ride on the skytrain when you can still get there faster and cheaper and more comfy driving?

[allan_kuan]

I like how TransLink has done some of the homework and actually explained what sort of surface traffic disruptions would occur with an LRT on Broadway. I think once the west-side people see this they may revolt against LRT. =O

[Zassk]

yeah but why spend over 10$ to park and ride on the skytrain when you can still get there faster and cheaper and more comfy driving?

How many km can you drive on $10 a day? My car gets about average fuel efficiency, and I can drive about 60 km on $10 of gas, or 30 km each way - about the length of Expo Line if there was a parallel road (which there is not). Once other vehicle costs are factored in, like ICBC's higher rates for longer distance commutes, the break-even distance would be substantially less than 30 km.

[Whalleyboy]

well you can factor the rest of the cost majority of people around still prefer to drive based on its quicker. Well it may cost a fair bit more most people will pay the price to be comfortable and quick. Surrey lays in a place where it so easy and quick to get any where in the lowermainland that its lack of transit loses out since it takes way to long for anyone here to get any where using it. if you dont believe me heres a map to look for yourself.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&start=0&num=200&msa=0&msid=204919430778929884696.00048bf3fb216de9c313e&t=h&z=10
Transit should be competing against that not letting it win and losing a huge amount of people who could be using transit instead

[BCPhil]

well you can factor the rest of the cost majority of people around still prefer to drive based on its quicker. Well it may cost a fair bit more most people will pay the price to be comfortable and quick. Surrey lays in a place where it so easy and quick to get any where in the lowermainland that its lack of transit loses out since it takes way to long for anyone here to get any where using it. if you dont believe me heres a map to look for yourself.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&start=0&num=200&msa=0&msid=204919430778929884696.00048bf3fb216de9c313e&t=h&z=10
Transit should be competing against that not letting it win and losing a huge amount of people who could be using transit instead

Tell that to the cars that fill the Scott Road Park and ride every day. Last time I parked in Bridgeport on a weekday morning I was on the roof.

Yes, driving can get you downtown faster than Skytrain... during regular hours. But during the peak, in peak direction, it's a bit of a crap shoot. A lot of people will drive to Scott Road and train in because that way they don't have to drive across the bridges. Parking is only $3 a day at Scott Road, vs $3.25 per half hour at Pacific Center or up to a day maximum at some places between $11 (Gastown) to $23 at Bentall. So $9 (day pass) + $3 parking is comparable to just parking downtown, not counting cost of gas or mileage on your auto.

So if you want to compare door to door trips, Skytrain is usually faster and cheaper for individual travel. If you add in the cost of gas, the time it takes to wait in traffic if you hit it, the cost of parking, and the time it takes to find an empty spot (in the busier parts of town), and the time it takes to walk from your parking spot to the destination, then Skytrain starts to show it's advantages.

But then again, as soon as you start to add more people to your car, like friends, a wife or kids, then driving becomes economical once more.

But you bring up comfortable and quick, which are 2 factors that Skytrain improves on over a bus. So if you are travelling to the Broadway area from Surrey, right now it is better to drive, just because you avoid the B Line. But if there was Skytrain for more of the journey through the busiest, slowest part of the trip, then it would attract more riders away from cars, because it improves on speed and comfort at a reasonable price.

Right now about 50% of people entering downtown do so on Transit. For the Broadway Business sector, that number is about 20%. With a full Skytrain connection the length of the business district, it can improve on that number, potentially reaching the same levels as downtown. That would be a lot of cars off the road.

[metroXpress]

But you bring up comfortable and quick, which are 2 factors that Skytrain improves on over a bus. So if you are travelling to the Broadway area from Surrey, right now it is better to drive, just because you avoid the B Line. But if there was Skytrain for more of the journey through the busiest, slowest part of the trip, then it would attract more riders away from cars, because it improves on speed and comfort at a reasonable price.


It's logical to go with RRT and avoid the street level mess we get with the LRT combos. Broadway will get its ridership with RRT in place. All those B-line buses can go service somewhere else. Very much like how Canada Line replaced 99 B-Lines and improved the north-south corridor significantly, the same applies for the Broadway corridor. The problem always comes down to money, or else we can build several RRT lines simultaneously.

[Whalleyboy]

the broadway part isnt the slowest part of the trip for people traveling from surrey. Its the bus ride just to get to the skytrain thats painful. i would say we dont have dedicated lanes for bus so they stuck in the same traffic as a person in the car but i'm sure you'll just say surrey should make some then. Which is sad cause why should surrey have to give up its car lanes to make easier to bus well mean time vancouver gets a new skytrain route.
I challenge you to come and make a few trips around south of the fraser using transit and see if you still think we deserve nothing. Unless youre one of those people who say Surrey is gross i'm not going there/havent been here in a while. In which case you should have a right to choose with out knowing both sides of what your talking about.

As for the whole parking and all that stuff i have a few friends who work all the way out in Vancouver and they all choose to drive out there instead since they get parking through work. Also the route i should you are just direct routes which during peak yes are bad but doesnt mean there arent routes around them which are still faster.

Besides all that Surrey doesnt just need better transit to get to Vancouver. What about the majority of use who work, live and play around surrey why should we keep paying out in gas tax money and get nothing here to use to travel around? theres atleast over 400,000. and only about a small percent live near are small 4 stations

To quote one of surrey councilors. You can take a bus and get any where in Vancouver. Surrey you can't. So good luck at trying to get peole in Surrey to use and ill equiped transit system which we've havent seen any rapid transit expansion in since 94. mean while north of the fraser has seen both millenium line, Canada line and next evergreen line.

[nname]

the broadway part isnt the slowest part of the trip for people traveling from surrey. Its the bus ride just to get to the skytrain thats painful. i would say we dont have dedicated lanes for bus so they stuck in the same traffic as a person in the car but i'm sure you'll just say surrey should make some then. Which is sad cause why should surrey have to give up its car lanes to make easier to bus well mean time vancouver gets a new skytrain route.

Actually, King George is wide enough/can be easily widened for a bus lane without reducing the capacity of the road... The same cannot be said for Broadway. For a bus/LRT lane, it will reduce the road to ONE lane each direction, effectively cutting the road capacity by half.

And for having the Skytrain for Broadway now but not for Surrey.. I think the main reason is that Broadway already has 10 times the ridership as the busiest transit corridor in Surrey. Don't you think its more logical to build more popular route to serve more people first?

And I agree that the service in Surrey is lacking, but it is improving. AFAIK, more than half of improvement during last 5 years are focused on Surrey. It require time to get the ridership to build up and the improvement can only be done slowly.. otherwise who's going to pay for the empty buses?

As far as the NOF getting Millennium, Canada, Evergreen lines and Surrey gets none... Name one corridor in SOF that has more ridership than the bus route(s) which the 3 lines replaced. You can't. There's none. (As far as people saying the 97 B-Line is underutilized and the Evergreen Line will be useless, it still have more ridership than either 320, 321, and 502 in SOF.. this does not include the ridership from the 169, which is also going to be replaced by the Evergreen Line)

[CLC]

Broadway already has 10 times the ridership as the busiest transit corridor in Surrey

Out of curiosity, can you clarify which bus #'s you counts as Broadway corridor buses?
And which bus #'s in Surrey as the busiest transit corridor you mentioned?

Better yet, do you have bus routes ridership documents to share (not those from 4-5 years ago )?:D

[crazyjoeda]

well you can factor the rest of the cost majority of people around still prefer to drive based on its quicker. Well it may cost a fair bit more most people will pay the price to be comfortable and quick. Surrey lays in a place where it so easy and quick to get any where in the lowermainland that its lack of transit loses out since it takes way to long for anyone here to get any where using it. if you dont believe me heres a map to look for yourself.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&start=0&num=200&msa=0&msid=204919430778929884696.00048bf3fb216de9c313e&t=h&z=10
Transit should be competing against that not letting it win and losing a huge amount of people who could be using transit instead

I would disagree with that assessment. I live in South Surrey and the quickest way downtown is 351 Bus + Canada Line = a consistent 50 minute trip to Vancouver City Centre Station. A car can't compete with that especially when you factor in finding a parking space. The UBC line needs to be a priority over Skytrain expansion in Surrey because the ridership and density is already there. Surrey hasn't taken advantage of the 4 stations it already has; transit oriented development lags behind the rest of the region despite having Skytrain for 20 years! People living in other regions will also benefit from the UBC line since it will serve so many regional destinations.

Looking at the transit study website it's clear to me that Skytrain option B from VCC is the way to go. Bus Rapid transit or LRT wont cut it, just look at the street integration Broadway businesses will lose all parking and traffic will be a nightmare.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/images/content/bpotp/public_consultation/consultations/ubc_phase2/tabbed_module/tm_cross_section_arbutus_commercial.ashx?w=710&h=551&as=1

[madmigs]

Out of curiosity, can you clarify which bus #'s you counts as Broadway corridor buses?
And which bus #'s in Surrey as the busiest transit corridor you mentioned?

Better yet, do you have bus routes ridership documents to share (not those from 4-5 years ago )?:D

Not sure if its 10x, but both broadway bus routes in some graphic that I think nname made from translink data showed that the 99 and the 9 were the 2 busiest bus routes with something like 50,000 and 30,000 rides respectively. Plus some of the other bus routes also go down broadway for certain sections.

While a UBC line would replace the B-Line, we may not be able to entirely phase out the 9 as the 9 would be the bus to carry people in between skytrain stops. Although depending on distances between stations, the 9 might not be needed at all. And the 84(?) from VCC Clark could possibly also be phased out.

And why are we having this surrey vs broadway discussion again?

[madmigs]

http://buzzer.translink.ca/index.php/2011/03/ubc-line-updates-the-alternatives-are-now-online-and-the-first-consultation-is-tonight-wed-mar-30-2011/

[nname]

Out of curiosity, can you clarify which bus #'s you counts as Broadway corridor buses?
And which bus #'s in Surrey as the busiest transit corridor you mentioned?

Better yet, do you have bus routes ridership documents to share (not those from 4-5 years ago )?:D

Broadway's number is directly from Translink (100,000)... I would assume is consist of the 99, and part of 9 and 17?

As for Surrey, its from that same document with 2007 ridership. It shows that the most popular 300-series route has daily ridership of 8500, followed by 8000 and 7000. The most popular 500-series route has daily ridership of 7000. Even with growth and the ridership of peak-hour limited stop routes added in, it is still hard to believe that the ridership would be much greater than 10,000 today.

[Whalleyboy]

bus dont bring people in to use transit really. Studies have proven Rails have a way better draw then Buses. Well surely transit wont lose any ridership along broadway. There gonna be losing more SoF once the SFPR gets built or even worse end up losing all of SoF together. more then 80% of the people who travel travel by car due and alot of that is due to lack of transit. Putting more bus out in Surrey isnt gonna get them out of there cars.

[andyh]

Surrey has two things going against it. The first is the low density. Second and more importantly, it is a city that loves the car. I know a few people there that wouldn't take public transit if it was free and went through a Tim Hortons drive thru.

[nname]

bus dont bring people in to use transit really. Studies have proven Rails have a way better draw then Buses. Well surely transit wont lose any ridership along broadway. There gonna be losing more SoF once the SFPR gets built or even worse end up losing all of SoF together. more then 80% of the people who travel travel by car due and alot of that is due to lack of transit. Putting more bus out in Surrey isnt gonna get them out of there cars.

Well, if you're just focusing on ridership.. assume rail brings 50% more ridership in area where transit is more established and 200% more ridership in area where transit is lacking, which gives you the more ridership?
- 50% of 100,000
- 200% of 10,000

Now if they are loosing SoF all together, which gives more ridership?
- 50% of 100,000
- -100% of 10,000

Without politicial boundaries and limitations... if you want to invest on a line that yield the best return, which one would you choose?

[madmigs]

bus dont bring people in to use transit really. Studies have proven Rails have a way better draw then Buses. Well surely transit wont lose any ridership along broadway. There gonna be losing more SoF once the SFPR gets built or even worse end up losing all of SoF together. more then 80% of the people who travel travel by car due and alot of that is due to lack of transit. Putting more bus out in Surrey isnt gonna get them out of there cars.
Very true, that rail has a far better draw for people than bus. But rail isn't all the economical, at least higher speed rail like the ALRT, for low density areas unless from a huge park and ride and major bus hub. That said, in the long run it can have a huge influence on development along the line ala the expo line and more and more on the m-line.

[squeezied]

So Whalleyboy, nevermind the ubc line for now, what do you propose for Surrey? Rail to every corner of each neighbourhood in Surrey? RRT or LRT, it's going to be expensive.

What Surrey needs is improved bus service. Most importantly what Surrey needs to do is plan for transit friendly neighbourhoods. It's pretty unreasonable to build sprawl and demand better transit at the same time.

[Whalleyboy]

So Whalleyboy, nevermind the ubc line for now, what do you propose for Surrey? Rail to every corner of each neighbourhood in Surrey? RRT or LRT, it's going to be expensive.

What Surrey needs is improved bus service. Most importantly what Surrey needs to do is plan for transit friendly neighbourhoods. It's pretty unreasonable to build sprawl and demand better transit at the same time.

Why do you think Surrey has been working on its community plans lately? there making transit friendly neighborhoods. Its been working for a long time on trying to please transit to come to us. Except every time Surrey gets an Eye looked at it Vancouver cries. Also the thing is your not noting still is transit is need to help move people around SoF not just getting them to Vancouver. Not everything is about Vancouver.

Well i am not for the longer expansion of skytrain all the way to langley i am in support for a push out to newton although i'd like to see it more towards hwy 10 and making a park and ride there. It would be following Surreys busiest route. It would also allow a much larger portion of SoF to be a closer to skytrain. followed by a brt route through guildford then down 152 to fraser hwy then to langley. While i would prefer to see lrt brt would be fine until a higher need came.(a plan that is already one of the proposed ones that was put out for surrey). To add to the though worried ubc would being ignored fully for this line. Seeing how that line is shorter it would be quicker and cheaper to build then the langley route thus allowing the moving on to the UBC line quicker. I am not deny the need for UBC line just the need that north Surrey should no longer be ignored due to unfair rated density levels.

Newton is the most populated comunity of Surrey with about 120,000 people. It holds more population then guildford and fleetwood combined. Having a skytrain connection between the two most populated communites of surrey is a no brainer in my mind. On top of all that transit biggest rideship comes froms immigrants and newton has a huge immigrant population that is untaped. On top of that its a quickly growing area too. I bet more people a year come and live in newton then the raising student number at ubc each year.

[allan_kuan]

Frankly I look at the plans for Newton (or at least I looked at them awhile ago) and they don't look ambitious at tapping into any sort of SkyTrain construction down there... it just looks more like the typical townhouse sprawl multiplied by a small factor of 1.5. Maybe more transit friendly, but still not in the sort of denseness that characterizes other recent TOD developed areas like Coquitlam, Port Moody, Brentwood, New West, Metrotown, etc. =S As a result it's not really something that I'd find encouraging to build to.

Having said that I'm not too opposed to having a BRT system set up down there... seems like the right choice atm as you can do a bit of trial and error with it before fixing down the route. Maybe that'll also help cement down the areas that would be redeveloped as high-rise TOD after.

Correct me if i'm wrong though. =S

[Whalleyboy]

the old 98 b line bus promised to surrey that were suppose to follow that route went to Vancouver as always. so trial an error isnt happening

[Zassk]

Newton is the most populated comunity of Surrey with about 120,000 people. It holds more population then guildford and fleetwood combined. Having a skytrain connection between the two most populated communites of surrey is a no brainer in my mind.

Agreed. This should be the top priority and the only SkyTrain extension to be considered south of the Fraser for the moment (ahead of Broadway etc). Wait and see which of the other communities grows largest - Fleetwood, Guildford, Cloverdale, Langley, etc. - and then plan for a second spur after that becomes clear. We can't build RRT to all of those communities, so we need one of them to grow to prominence.

[allan_kuan]

You mean it was transferred to Broadway? =S I guess that makes the second priority automatic. =O

I really dunno what to say though about TransLink's budget troubles. I mean, buses are being maintained at just-operable status with duct tape and what not, SkyTrains look dirty as ever, stations need upgrades, but all the funds are gone. I can think of a number of reasons why but I'd probably spark a fiery debate if I list them which would not be wholly relevant to Broadway itself. =S

[nname]

the old 98 b line bus promised to surrey that were suppose to follow that route went to Vancouver as always. so trial an error isnt happening

Actually, if you're tracking all the bus movements since Canada Line, you'll see Vancouver got a slight net loss of busses (with some 60ft buses replacing the 40ft ones). Surrey get a net gain of buses (although they're not 60ft). There are about 70 buses placed in storage, with 25 ready to be sold-off... those are the ones that supposed to go to Surrey (other than swapping the 60ft with 40ft), but there's no money to run them.

[squeezied]

To me, I don't believe it is very responsible of public money to be spent on skytrain in Surrey. It does not have the ridership to justify it. What it needs now is improved bus services and express buses like the b-lines. Once there is a proven ridership along a particular route to justify higher capacity transit service then LRT or RRT should be considered. That's how all the skytrains came to be built: get the B-lines first, then skytrain. Why should Surrey get special treatment?

Quite frankly, the rapid transit study for Surrey is a mess. There really isn't a clear direction what to do. You have a half-dozen town centres spread over a large area, each showing no real aptitute for transit. Increase bus service first, over time it'll be clearer which town centre arises to be the most accepting of rapid transit. Then there'll be a clear direction what to do. Newton might currently seem to be the choice option, but not by a long shot.

But this thread is about the UBC line and in the UBC rapid transit study, notice how the study area is so small and narrow and defined compared to Surrey's. It's clear and obvious that the Broadway corridor has a defined need for rapid transit. Again the main thing I stress is that the UBC line is not just for Vancouver, in fact I'd argue that the UBC line would benefit the eastern suburbs more than it benefits the residents of Vancouver. This is a central line where people throughout the region would need to converge. I hold no special bias towards the UBC line just because I live in Vancouver (fact is I don't live in an area where it would be useful to me). The reason why I strongly support the UBC line (in particular RRT option B) is because it is for the benefit of the whole region, not for some local populations.

There is a good and important reason why the central cities get the lion's share of transit funding and the suburbs receive noticeably less. This is true for nearly all cities around the world. Metro Vancouver is no different.

[Whalleyboy]

SoF as a whole is more important then one small corridor sincer there is so many people there thats why it SoF and not a certain route.

Surrey is second most populated city and set to become the most. It holds only 4 rapid transit stations.
heck we dont even need to include Surrey as a whole if we take just north surrey(whalley/newton/guildford/fleetwood) its population is over 300,000 and its roughly about the size a burnaby...maybe plus part of new west. It has 4 stations to all of that area and all of that population. kinda unfair when you look as less populated burnaby and see how many stations it has

[nname]

SoF as a whole is more important then one small corridor sincer there is so many people there thats why it SoF and not a certain route.

But the sad truth is... SoF (Surrey + Delta + WR) as a whole actually got less transit ridership than the Broadway corridor... Data from 2007, assuming an average transfer of 1.8 per trip applies to all routes in the region

[Whalleyboy]

yeah i wonder why that is...no wait i dont wonder. Have you even tried using transit around here. its just complete crap. You can't live south of the fraser and rely on transit. did you even read about the kwantlen challenge against transit a while back? I guy running and a normal guy riding his bike beat the bus. The flaw is transit is funneling people in to vancouver. Majority of people SoF dont go that way

[CLC]

Surrey is second most populated city and set to become the most. It holds only 4 rapid transit stations.

According to the cities' projection, it is still about 30 years away (i.e. 2041) when Surrey may overtake Vancouver in population counts.:rolleyes:

If you believe ground light rail is a form of rapid transit, then it is probably the way to go for Surrey to get its shares of rapid transit stations.

Honestly, I also don't think ridership is the most important consideration for where to put new rail transit investment (Otherwise we should also push for a rail line along Vancouver 41st/49st avenue, which likely has higher ridership number than Evergreen Line instantly). The major goal for rail investment should be to improve the livelihood (i.e., convenience, significantly reduces travel time, etc.) of potential vast amount of population. Of course when choosing technology and determining the scale of the project, ridership estimation comes into play.

[nname]

yeah i wonder why that is...no wait i dont wonder. Have you even tried using transit around here. its just complete crap. You can't live south of the fraser and rely on transit. did you even read about the kwantlen challenge against transit a while back? I guy running and a normal guy riding his bike beat the bus. The flaw is transit is funneling people in to vancouver. Majority of people SoF dont go that way

Yes, I know. But SoF isn't the only one that has the problem. I often walk faster than the transit around here, but there's still 50% higher per capita ridership here... I wonder why... (Note: Here = Coquitlam/PoCo area)

And yes, I've taken buses in the SoF area, and quite a few times the buses are quite crowded. But they are no where near as crowded as the ones I experienced when I'm in Vancouver...

[squeezied]

SoF as a whole is more important then one small corridor sincer there is so many people there thats why it SoF and not a certain route.

The problem with that statement is that you're using arbitrary boundaries for your advantage. The reason why SoF has such a large population is because of its large land area. Population doesn't tell you a thing.

If the whole province of Saskatchewan was amalgamated into one city then you could say this "city" with a population of 1 million is underserved with transit and deserves rapid transit connecting all its people. Afterall, the "city" of saskatchewan is more important than the small Broadway corridor since the city of saskatchewan has more people... Crude example, but you get the point. (hopefully)

[nname]

According to the cities' projection, it is still about 30 years away (i.e. 2041) when Surrey may overtake Vancouver in population counts.:rolleyes:

One of the projection in the 1980s was to have Surrey comes pretty close to Vancouver's population by around 2011-2016... Surrey has 230k less people than Vancouver in 1986... with the "rapid growth" in the past few decades, now it has about 200k less... At this rate, it'll take 190 years for Surrey to overtake Vancouver's population... :D

[roleypolinde]

I am absolutely sick of being a sardine on The 49 bus and tired of being crushed like cattle on Broadway B-Line.

No fooling around, no goofing with LRT (who's going to go for that, remove parking from broadway? the BIA would have a fit. This route will be a backbone just as important as Downtown to New West is. Just as important as the Canada Line (Which is also sardine can tight some days)

Build light rail in surrey, makes much more sense when you have lower density and a large area to serve. It works for portland. The slightly lower cost allows for branches instead of a single trunk line.

Enough on surrey, sorry even I shouldn't be talking about surrey in this thread

[invisibleairwaves]

I take a shitty bus trip every day through Surrey to get to the Skytrain and I'd still like to see the Broadway line happen before expansion into Surrey (or the Tri-Cities, for that matter). It's just a bigger need. Plus, the inevitable quick success of the line will make it easier to get political support for future projects in the suburbs.

That said, Fraser Highway, King George, and 104th deserve B-lines ASAP. This should happen before Broadway.

[nname]

Honestly, I also don't think ridership is the most important consideration for where to put new rail transit investment (Otherwise we should also push for a rail line along Vancouver 41st/49st avenue, which likely has higher ridership number than Evergreen Line instantly). The major goal for rail investment should be to improve the livelihood (i.e., convenience, significantly reduces travel time, etc.) of potential vast amount of population. Of course when choosing technology and determining the scale of the project, ridership estimation comes into play.

I think ridership plays an important factor. Another factor would be the distance to the closest rapid transit corridor (ie. is there any alternative available?) If a rapid transit is built on Broadway, it would be unlikely to see another one in 41/49st, as many passenger travelling longer distance (especially the ones travelling to/from Cambie or UBC) would have a choice of taking the Broadway route instead. This leaves the short-distance riders, where speed is less of an issue. The same applies to Cambie/Arbutus, NW/SE routes in Coquitlam, and King George/Scott Road in Surrey - after one line is built, its much more unlikely to see the other line in the near future. If a Broadway line is built, then Evergreen Line or a line along King George would be at a higher priority than a 41/49th Ave line because there is no other rapid transit alternatives along the route, even if the former has higher ridership.

[squeezied]

So did anyone attend the first public consultation meeting? Did anyone remember that is? ;)

There will be one being held today Thursday March 31 at UBC at 6pm. I'll be attending that one. If last year's session as UBC was any indication of this upcoming one, I'm sure it'll be mostly in favour of RRT. What I'm more curious to hear are the comments from the other sessions where all the nimbys would be attending (hopefully once they see all the lost parking due to LRT and BRT configuration they'll consider RRT)

[BCPhil]

the broadway part isnt the slowest part of the trip for people traveling from surrey. Its the bus ride just to get to the skytrain thats painful. i would say we dont have dedicated lanes for bus so they stuck in the same traffic as a person in the car but i'm sure you'll just say surrey should make some then. Which is sad cause why should surrey have to give up its car lanes to make easier to bus well mean time vancouver gets a new skytrain route.
I challenge you to come and make a few trips around south of the fraser using transit and see if you still think we deserve nothing. Unless youre one of those people who say Surrey is gross i'm not going there/havent been here in a while. In which case you should have a right to choose with out knowing both sides of what your talking about.

As for the whole parking and all that stuff i have a few friends who work all the way out in Vancouver and they all choose to drive out there instead since they get parking through work. Also the route i should you are just direct routes which during peak yes are bad but doesnt mean there arent routes around them which are still faster.

Besides all that Surrey doesnt just need better transit to get to Vancouver. What about the majority of use who work, live and play around surrey why should we keep paying out in gas tax money and get nothing here to use to travel around? theres atleast over 400,000. and only about a small percent live near are small 4 stations

To quote one of surrey councilors. You can take a bus and get any where in Vancouver. Surrey you can't. So good luck at trying to get peole in Surrey to use and ill equiped transit system which we've havent seen any rapid transit expansion in since 94. mean while north of the fraser has seen both millenium line, Canada line and next evergreen line.

First off, Dude, I live in Surrey. I take the 319 almost every single day. So don't take it so personal. And there aren't that many places in Surrey that have NO service. There are very few trips, between 2 random points, in the City of Vancouver you can do on one bus. Unless you are on the same road, it's unlikely, almost impossible. It's the same for Surrey. Bus service is there, you just need to make the right transfers. The problem is that there just isn't frequent service on many routes.

But really, it is kind of comparable. I can go from my place to Guildford mall in 2 or 3 transfers, both take about 45 minutes to do a trip that takes 20 minutes to Drive. In Vancouver, you can go from my old place in Marpole to Nat Bailey Stadium in 1 transfer in 40 minutes that takes 15 to drive. Both cities seem comparable at times, depends on how you look at it.

Second, your argument counters itself.

Which is it: slow or fast? If buses are stuck in traffic, then so are cars, meaning cars are slow, and buses are only slower by a minute or two.

If traffic is inching along so slow, that a bus needs a lane to make good time, then the time it spends stopped at stops is insignificant compared to the slow pace of traffic. The advantage of driving disappears. The difference is once the bus gets you to Skytrain, you are out of traffic. Cars still have to contend with more traffic and crossing bridges, then more traffic on the other side, while the transit rider just has to wait 3 minutes for a train.

And why not add a bus lane? King George Blvd is wide enough to add an extra transit lane from King George Station to 72nd (almost) without doing any major work or taking away existing lanes. When traffic is jammed, then buses can fly by. A great example of this is on Willingdon. Around BCIT, the buses have an easy time, while traffic can wait at the light at Canada Way for 3 or 4 cycles. They even added an extra bus lane further North over Still Creek drive and the RR tracks, it's a huge time saver. Going from Metrotown to Brentwood in the afternoon rush is about 5 to 10 minutes faster by bus on the 130 than in the car.

Plus spending billions to bring rapid transit SoF still isn't going to bring it that much closer to MOST people. MOST people SOF are still going to be at least one bus ride from any rapid transit expansion. They could build a line all the way to Langley, but it won't shorten my bus ride at all. Me, and MOST of Newton are far to the East of any proposed line.

It's great that your friends get parking through work. Do they pay for it? If not, they better watch out, many a company and employee have been dinged by revenue Canada for not declaring parking as a benefit. If you take that into account, the amount that is coming off your paycheck (visibly or invisibly) to pay for their spot downtown, the economics might not be so clear to them. Or maybe they don't work downtown, in which case this "Skytrain is faster to get downtown" argument is kind of pointless on them. Maybe they work on Broadway? In which case if there WAS Skytrain that came right to their office door, they would switch. Assuming they do not work close to Skytrain, would they ride Skytrain anyway, even if it was close to their house?

Personally, if I had the choice between:
Home -> Bus -> Skytrain -> Work
-or-
Home -> Skytrain -> Bus -> Work
I would chose the first one. The bus close to home is the fixed time table, and having it close to the starting location makes it easier to control. I know that I have to be out the door at exactly :15 after if I want to make a bus (for example). But when you have skytrain, that isn't 100% fixed and just operates on the every 5 minutes principle, it is harder to know when to leave to be on time for that bus on the other end. I have to add extra time in case the train is off by a minute. Meaning I always have to be extra early, just to be safe, wasting my time.

Anyway,

I'm not saying it should never happen. And I'm not saying anything done SOF won't help. But looking at numbers, Broadway gets over 100,000 transit rides a day. That is A LOT OF FREAKING MONEY that goes to pay for operating buses that could be spread all over SOF providing every single person down here better bus service. Within years that ridership would be up to 150,000 (translink estimates, I would bet almost 200,000 within a few years), thus paying into the operating budget to pay for buses SOF. The Broadway line can subsidize bus routes SOF.

[wrenegade]

I think it is terribly irresponsible to sink billions of dollars on Skytrain based on purely speculative ridership numbers. I've said it so many times before. A B-Line bus route should be a pre-requisite of any Skytrain line, no exceptions. It requires little or no infrastructure improvements and would be able to accurately gauge ridership for routes. If you had the spare buses, you could even run trials at relatively little cost. The Canada Line had a B-Line, Evergreen will have had a B-Line, and Broadway has a B-Line. Why should we make an exception for Surrey? Yes I know it is one of the fastest growing areas in the city and they will likely overtake Vancouver's population (but not for 25-30 years), but the numbers aren't there yet. They are along Broadway. Even for residents in Surrey this should make logical sense. B-Line, then Skytrain.

[logan5]

Forget about a slow b-line, Surrey streets could easily accommodate a genuine bus rapid transit system, at a small fraction of the cost of Skytrain. I agree with others here in saying that Skytrain expansion in Surrey is a monumental waste of money.

[CLC]

^ genuine bus rapid transit system is very expensive if you built it according to the most prized standard.

Guangzhou "the world most expensive" BRT (23000pphd) celebrated 1 year, it is politically driven, still controversial and nobody knows what the real costs (though it must be more times over what the agency has said)

Of course we all know Translink is more capable of building a low-standard low capacity BRT, aka b-line.:cheers:

[crazyjoeda]

I think it is terribly irresponsible to sink billions of dollars on Skytrain based on purely speculative ridership numbers. I've said it so many times before. A B-Line bus route should be a pre-requisite of any Skytrain line, no exceptions. It requires little or no infrastructure improvements and would be able to accurately gauge ridership for routes. If you had the spare buses, you could even run trials at relatively little cost. The Canada Line had a B-Line, Evergreen will have had a B-Line, and Broadway has a B-Line. Why should we make an exception for Surrey? Yes I know it is one of the fastest growing areas in the city and they will likely overtake Vancouver's population (but not for 25-30 years), but the numbers aren't there yet. They are along Broadway. Even for residents in Surrey this should make logical sense. B-Line, then Skytrain.

B-Line before Skytrain expansion in Surrey makes sense. Surrey needs to build more walkable neighborhoods and attract more transit oriented development along any future rapid transit corridor. Broadway and the Evergreen Line corridors already has these condition so expanding Skytrain in these areas is a very good investment. Surrey isn't ready for more Skytrain just yet.

[crazyjoeda]

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110331/bc_ubc_transit_110331/20110331?hub=BritishColumbia#commentSection

Some business on Broadway seem to think the Skytrain tunnel plan would be to disruptive to businesses. I doubt they had a good look at all the other plans because Skytrain is the only option that wouldn't permanently take away parking.

[CLC]

Media spin has begun...
Ctvbc: Broadway merchants fear repeat of Cambie nightmare, say they're worried one option could seriously hurt their business.

TransLink is looking at seven options to get students to the University of B.C., including more bus service, a light rail system and a subway tunnel under Broadway all the way from Commercial Drive.

That last option has some people thinking back to construction along of the Canada Line, which sent customers away from Cambie Street and forced some businesses to close their doors.

"For such a small business, I'm not sure how we would do it," said Steph Carr at Chapel Hats.

"To tear up all of Broadway, it wouldn't just affect small businesses, it would affect the community."

There are no plans so far to use the cut-and-cover technique on Broadway that was used on the Canada Line, but there weren't any in the initial stages of that project, either.

TransLink says the project is still in the consultation stage, and the evaluation period for the seven proposals is expected to last into early 2012.

The cheapest plan -- improving the bus system -- is expected to cost about $325 million in capital costs, while the subway option would cost $3 billion.

For more information about the seven options, visit the TransLink website.

[Metro-One]

This just goes to show how uninformed people are.

The LRT options would cause far more disruptions during construction (permanent ones as well) than a bored skytrain tunnel. Simply look at the recent street grade construction in Toronto.

I knew it was only going to be a couple days graced before the misinformed uneducated sensationalist media would begin spinning out articles.

[Whalleyboy]

First off, Dude, I live in Surrey. I take the 319 almost every single day. So don't take it so personal. And there aren't that many places in Surrey that have NO service. There are very few trips, between 2 random points, in the City of Vancouver you can do on one bus. Unless you are on the same road, it's unlikely, almost impossible. It's the same for Surrey. Bus service is there, you just need to make the right transfers. The problem is that there just isn't frequent service on many routes.

But really, it is kind of comparable. I can go from my place to Guildford mall in 2 or 3 transfers, both take about 45 minutes to do a trip that takes 20 minutes to Drive. In Vancouver, you can go from my old place in Marpole to Nat Bailey Stadium in 1 transfer in 40 minutes that takes 15 to drive. Both cities seem comparable at times, depends on how you look at it.

Second, your argument counters itself.

Which is it: slow or fast? If buses are stuck in traffic, then so are cars, meaning cars are slow, and buses are only slower by a minute or two.

If traffic is inching along so slow, that a bus needs a lane to make good time, then the time it spends stopped at stops is insignificant compared to the slow pace of traffic. The advantage of driving disappears. The difference is once the bus gets you to Skytrain, you are out of traffic. Cars still have to contend with more traffic and crossing bridges, then more traffic on the other side, while the transit rider just has to wait 3 minutes for a train.

And why not add a bus lane? King George Blvd is wide enough to add an extra transit lane from King George Station to 72nd (almost) without doing any major work or taking away existing lanes. When traffic is jammed, then buses can fly by. A great example of this is on Willingdon. Around BCIT, the buses have an easy time, while traffic can wait at the light at Canada Way for 3 or 4 cycles. They even added an extra bus lane further North over Still Creek drive and the RR tracks, it's a huge time saver. Going from Metrotown to Brentwood in the afternoon rush is about 5 to 10 minutes faster by bus on the 130 than in the car.

Plus spending billions to bring rapid transit SoF still isn't going to bring it that much closer to MOST people. MOST people SOF are still going to be at least one bus ride from any rapid transit expansion. They could build a line all the way to Langley, but it won't shorten my bus ride at all. Me, and MOST of Newton are far to the East of any proposed line.

It's great that your friends get parking through work. Do they pay for it? If not, they better watch out, many a company and employee have been dinged by revenue Canada for not declaring parking as a benefit. If you take that into account, the amount that is coming off your paycheck (visibly or invisibly) to pay for their spot downtown, the economics might not be so clear to them. Or maybe they don't work downtown, in which case this "Skytrain is faster to get downtown" argument is kind of pointless on them. Maybe they work on Broadway? In which case if there WAS Skytrain that came right to their office door, they would switch. Assuming they do not work close to Skytrain, would they ride Skytrain anyway, even if it was close to their house?

Personally, if I had the choice between:
Home -> Bus -> Skytrain -> Work
-or-
Home -> Skytrain -> Bus -> Work
I would chose the first one. The bus close to home is the fixed time table, and having it close to the starting location makes it easier to control. I know that I have to be out the door at exactly :15 after if I want to make a bus (for example). But when you have skytrain, that isn't 100% fixed and just operates on the every 5 minutes principle, it is harder to know when to leave to be on time for that bus on the other end. I have to add extra time in case the train is off by a minute. Meaning I always have to be extra early, just to be safe, wasting my time.

Anyway,

I'm not saying it should never happen. And I'm not saying anything done SOF won't help. But looking at numbers, Broadway gets over 100,000 transit rides a day. That is A LOT OF FREAKING MONEY that goes to pay for operating buses that could be spread all over SOF providing every single person down here better bus service. Within years that ridership would be up to 150,000 (translink estimates, I would bet almost 200,000 within a few years), thus paying into the operating budget to pay for buses SOF. The Broadway line can subsidize bus routes SOF.

first my friends do work near transit. My one friends work is right beside granville street station Its right out the door. the other one works at the BMW store.

as for the second arguement about traffic well in your own car you have the choice to get off that road and go to another and get around traffic. A bus does not have that option it has a route that it must follow. But as you said driving does not compare to skytrain. so one could argue that by adding rapid transit along a route in surrey it would take the cars one up of being able to switch roads away. Thus pulling people in to transit.

As to reply to the adding and extra lane for brt along king george. If there gonna go through all the work of ripping the road up and laying down new lanes why not just add a lrt instead of having to go back rip the road up again and waste more money when it could have been done the first time and wasted less money?

[nname]

This just goes to show how uninformed people are.

The LRT options would cause far more disruptions during construction (permanent ones as well) than a bored skytrain tunnel. Simply look at the recent street grade construction in Toronto.

I knew it was only going to be a couple days graced before the misinformed uneducated sensationalist media would begin spinning out articles.

I guess they haven't read the part that state Broadway would loose 1 travel lane in each direction, plus 85% of the parking space...


As to reply to the adding and extra lane for brt along king george. If there gonna go through all the work of ripping the road up and laying down new lanes why not just add a lrt instead of having to go back rip the road up again and waste more money when it could have been done the first time and wasted less money?

One thing about building LRT first... If one day LRT is proven to be inadequate for the corridor, don't ever expect they'll rip up the tracks and put in some higher capacity transit since they already spent so much money to build it... At least BRT can be convert to either LRT or RRT easily in the future...

And.. according to one of the report, putting a BRT on King George would barely break even during the first few years of operation (this does not include the loss for local routes). LRT, being much more expensive to implement and operate, would also certain to result in huge losses in operation during the first few years.. Would implement revenue-neutral BRT before spending money on conversion be cheaper than incurring these losses for a number of years?

[Whalleyboy]

Thats why i think skytrain expansion to newton is better now. But hey you dont think so I'm just giving you the arguement that if Skytrain isnt good enough then LRT should be put in atleast. I mean may as well make it last longer then keep going back. Add the fact LRT trains can get added length and get more trains they'd be good for a quite a while and since Surrey roads have huge gaps between lights longer trains could work here for LRT. Also once again as i said before rails are a far better draw in the buses.

[CLC]

The consultation documents are online now.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/bpotp/public_consultation/ubc_study/UBC%20Line%20RT%20Study%20Design%20Guide.ashx[/url]

I read this document more carefully. If I understand correct, tunnel/elevated option for light rail or even elevated option for BRT have not been ruled out at the start of phase 2 right? (though Page 23 indicated translink already made the ground-only assumption)
How can translink already quote a capital cost for LRT/BRT rather than providing a range of costs (given different percentage of possible tunnel and/or elevated section)?

[crazyjoeda]

I read this document more carefully. If I understand correct, tunnel/elevated option for light rail or even elevated option for BRT have not been ruled out at the start of phase 2 right? (though Page 23 indicated translink already made the ground-only assumption)
How can translink already quote a capital cost for LRT/BRT rather than providing a range of costs (given different percentage of possible tunnel and/or elevated section)?

"For the UBC Line study, alternatives using BRT and LRT
are designed at street-level in their own rights of way and
separated from other traffi c by a curb."

The costs quoted are for LRT/BRT at street level. They mention that an elevated or tunnel alignment is possible, but was not considered for this particular study.

[nname]

Thats why i think skytrain expansion to newton is better now. But hey you dont think so I'm just giving you the arguement that if Skytrain isnt good enough then LRT should be put in atleast. I mean may as well make it last longer then keep going back. Add the fact LRT trains can get added length and get more trains they'd be good for a quite a while and since Surrey roads have huge gaps between lights longer trains could work here for LRT. Also once again as i said before rails are a far better draw in the buses.

Then again, who will pay for the loss in operation when jumping into SkyTrain directly? Keep in mind the peak ridership in the King George corridor is still far below 1000pphpd, which is not even close to make any sort of rail-based rapid transit viable.


I read this document more carefully. If I understand correct, tunnel/elevated option for light rail or even elevated option for BRT have not been ruled out at the start of phase 2 right? (though Page 23 indicated translink already made the ground-only assumption)
How can translink already quote a capital cost for LRT/BRT rather than providing a range of costs (given different percentage of possible tunnel and/or elevated section)?

I think the main purpose of this evaluation is not "pick the option that you like the most".. Instead, they're seeking opinion for each of the options to decide what to add and what to remove from the baseline of each option. For instance:

- For RRT option, only 1 UBC station is needed
- For LRT, station should be 500m apart instead of 1km
- For LRT, no parking space and road lane should be lost
- LRT need to be grade separated east of Arbutus
- RRT can be build at-grade in University Blvd
- BRT should be placed on the side of the road rather than center
- No need for BRT east of Cambie for Combo 2 option
- Travel speed on BRT and LRT should increase by 2 minutes
- Option B is better for all LRT/BRT/RRT options
- etc.

After they collected the opinions, they'll adjust the design if needed, and come up with a new cost estimate. Based on the new cost and benifits, they will choose the best option out of the 6. I think chance are the LRT cost is going to go up, and the RRT cost is going to go down. But in the end, whatever get build is not up to us to decide...

[Whalleyboy]

Then again, who will pay for the loss in operation when jumping into SkyTrain directly? Keep in mind the peak ridership in the King George corridor is still far below 1000pphpd, which is not even close to make any sort of rail-based rapid transit viable.

Your basing your numbers of 1 bus route that goes along king george for that...theres a couple bus that go between central and newton. Not to mention that more feeder routes would be able to be done once a route is down king george. So instead of most bus heading all the way to central alot would head to nearest stations. Plus pulling in new passanger on top of that.
People will come if built. Just look at canada lines numbers there past the current projected numbers. Many people have already question if that line is under built now too. So why make the mistake twice and just but crapy "rapid transit" in surrey

[nname]

Your basing your numbers of 1 bus route that goes along king george for that...theres a couple bus that go between central and newton. Not to mention that more feeder routes would be able to be done once a route is down king george. So instead of most bus heading all the way to central alot would head to nearest stations. Plus pulling in new passanger on top of that.

Yes, its based on 1 bus route, but that's all we know right now. There are other routes that's parallel and prependicular to the King George route, but how will a rapid service system change the travel pattern and build up the ridership? No one knows. Should the entire Metro pay for this 1 billion experiment where there are more proven and more established corridor somewhere?

As for where the bus go.. I think most N/S routes will still go to Surrey Central as it would be the Downtown of Surrey (as bus still go to Downtown Vancouver even if they pass through skytrain stations). The only exceptions are probably the community shuttles in the Newton area and some E/W routes in the south.

And I never against SkyTrain in Surrey (if you see my post in fantasy thread, I put up a route to Newton via King George, then continuing to White Rock via 152th.. and another route to Langley via Guildford). But the problem is, Translink does not have 10 billions in the bank right now, and the BC government is not the same as Ontario, which just gave Toronto 8+ billions in rapid transit funding. We must make sure that we spend the limited funding in a way that would benifit the most people.

People will come if built. Just look at canada lines numbers there past the current projected numbers. Many people have already question if that line is under built now too. So why make the mistake twice and just but crapy "rapid transit" in surrey

- Canada Line began as 98 B-Line
- The 98 B-Line has 2.5x the ridership as King George's bus route right now (or 5x if you count the 49x, 60x, and 35x express routes)
- Canada Line is NOT underbuilt - only 1/3 of the capacity is used right now. They can increase the capacity by 1.5x instantly if there is funding to operate them
- Although the ridership is higher than expected, they are still within 20% from the original predction (in fact, the estimate from the RTM document is almost exactly dead-on)

To make a fair comparision, compare the ridership on the 401-408 when they are still heading to downtown.. that's where you see the difference in ridership. Although most people hate it during the conversion to B-Line, but the service sure help build up the ridership and pave the way to Canada Line you see today.

[allan_kuan]

I hate to say it, but please be patient. =S TransLink only has so much money to work with without the additional revenue that the mayors voted down. You can keep complaining about Surrey's transit woes (and I sympathize) and anything else that's wrong with TransLink but we can't do everything in one go and without the revenue fixes that are needed. =S So can you rest your case please for the time being and we can return to Broadway discussion? =S

[CLC]

Just look at canada lines numbers there past the current projected numbers.

Canada Line numbers consist a large part (>50%) of commuters travelling solely within Vancouver branch (e.g. Downtown<->Langara, Downtown<->Broadway-CityHall). Vancouver has a strong transit user base.

Surrey extension is a different situation, very hard to predict. But I bet its will grow at much slower pace like the M-Line of 2002-2005

[CLC]

I think the main purpose of this evaluation is not "pick the option that you like the most".. Instead, they're seeking opinion for each of the options to decide what to add and what to remove from the baseline of each option. For instance:

......[omitted long quote]

But in the end, whatever get build is not up to us to decide...

Unfortunately, from Vancouver Sun to CTV to Metro paper, you can see that the capital costs figures being emphasized. Translink probably did the wrong thing to give out preliminary figures (under pre-set assumptions) to public at this phase.

[nname]

Unfortunately, from Vancouver Sun to CTV to Metro paper, you can see that the capital costs figures being emphasized. Translink probably did the wrong thing to give out preliminary figures (under pre-set assumptions) to public at this phase.

But it is still up to Translink to decide which opinion to take. Even if there's 10000 comments on "LRT is better because its cheaper" and 100 comments about "Hmm... I think this section should be underground and this amount of parking space should be preserved". Those 100 comments are going to be treated more seriously and those others would most likely be disregarded. In the end, they can just say "based on the result of the consultation, we made the follow changes to the LRT and RRT design, and the new cost estimate is 2 billions for LRT and 2.4 billions for RRT. The RRT provide the best value for the investiment so this is the option we're chosen".. Public opinion on the choice is only 1 of the 28 criterias they used to determine the final alignment being chosen.

Its like.. how the people in White Rock and Delta asked to retain their direct bus service during the consultation of 2010 transportation plan, but nothing is being done about it simply because those are not the type of comments they were looking for during that consultation?

[Hot Rod]

To me, I don't believe it is very responsible of public money to be spent on skytrain in Surrey. It does not have the ridership to justify it. What it needs now is improved bus services and express buses like the b-lines. Once there is a proven ridership along a particular route to justify higher capacity transit service then LRT or RRT should be considered. That's how all the skytrains came to be built: get the B-lines first, then skytrain. Why should Surrey get special treatment?

Quite frankly, the rapid transit study for Surrey is a mess. There really isn't a clear direction what to do. You have a half-dozen town centres spread over a large area, each showing no real aptitute for transit. Increase bus service first, over time it'll be clearer which town centre arises to be the most accepting of rapid transit. Then there'll be a clear direction what to do. Newton might currently seem to be the choice option, but not by a long shot.

But this thread is about the UBC line and in the UBC rapid transit study, notice how the study area is so small and narrow and defined compared to Surrey's. It's clear and obvious that the Broadway corridor has a defined need for rapid transit. Again the main thing I stress is that the UBC line is not just for Vancouver, in fact I'd argue that the UBC line would benefit the eastern suburbs more than it benefits the residents of Vancouver. This is a central line where people throughout the region would need to converge. I hold no special bias towards the UBC line just because I live in Vancouver (fact is I don't live in an area where it would be useful to me). The reason why I strongly support the UBC line (in particular RRT option B) is because it is for the benefit of the whole region, not for some local populations.

There is a good and important reason why the central cities get the lion's share of transit funding and the suburbs receive noticeably less. This is true for nearly all cities around the world. Metro Vancouver is no different.

Simply put.

SOF needs more bus and bus connections, and needs to prove itself through use and/or planning that it needs rapid transit or LRT. This is because of the lack of density and the fact that most people down there aren't transit users (they just speak out of spite, mostly).

It is only natural for the most densely populated, employment base, central city (that is Vancouver) to have rapid rail transit. This should be a no-brainer, and actually would benefit the rest of the metro - as people in the suburbs could bus or park-n-ride, then take trains most/all the way to their destination in the central city. As was said, this is how it is done in ALL other major world cities - central city first (due to density, usage, and base), suburbs prove themselves.

In my opinion, Millennium extension should take priority for all rapid rail options. However, I would consider the Surrey extension next.

Priorities:
1) Millennium line VCC-UBC. Full subway from just before Main to UBC entry somewhere, emerging as elevated through UBC and lands. Ground/elevated from VCC to just before Main. This should be the top #1 priority, due to central city density, transit usage/demand, and employment/shopping DESTINATION base for the region (the region's #2 base).

2) Surrey Expansion. Elevated extensions down the Fraser Valley tract with a fork to Newton and White Rock.

2a - LRT from White Rock to Newton to Central to Guildford, could continue into the NE corridor
2b - SkyTrain from King George current terminus to Langley (somewhere) Potential mini-subway in Central once density gets there or planned.
2c - LRT from West Richmond to Richmond Centre (Canada Line SkyTrain) to Surrey Centre

3) WCE extension to Abbotsford Centre (and Airport)

4) Evergreen SkyTrain. longer route than has been discussed, however.

5) Tsawassen/Delta to Surrey Centre Commuter Rail.

6) Northshore LRT and/or Commuter Rail


Scheduling:

0) Improved/increased bus in SOF. NOW!!

A - Develop SOF Transit Development plan NOW!!!

B - Increase LOCAL transit bus routes in SOF, providing neighbourhood service to transit hub(s) (with the focus on Surrey Centre). Implement 2011

C - Implement Express/Commuter Bus in planned routes, starting small and expanding as ridership builds. Implement 2012.

1) WCE Commuter Rail extension to Abbotsford. Implement 2012

2) Tsawassen/Delta to Surrey Centre Commuter Rail. Implement 2012

3) UBC Millennium extension. Start construction 2012, end 2015.

4) Surrey LRT, option 2a above. Start construction 2012, end 2013.

5) Surrey LRT, option 2c above. Start construction 2012, end 2015.

6) Evergreen SkyTrain. Start construction 2014, end 2016.

7) Northshore LRT and/or Commuter Rail. Start construction 2016, end 2019.


Funding:

* 1-5% dedicated gas tax increase in Greater Lower Mainland [system-wide funding source]
* 5% dedicated Vehicle tax in Greater Lower Mainland [system-wide funding source]
* Tolls on major bridges (westbound during am rush, eastbound in pm rush)
* 1-10% dedicated parking tax [local funding source]
* Graduated property tax (rates TBD) for new transit corridors. This way, new neighbourhoods pay for their new transit, while sustaining existing areas aren't negatively affected (or as much).
* Distance based fares on SkyTrain. Max of $3.00 terminus to terminus during rush hours. Includes 2 hour transfer on local bus or 1 hour transfer to Commuter/Express bus.
* Zone based fares on bus. Local buses will be one zone, regardless of how many regions they cross. Bus will have rush hour premium added. Includes 1 hour transfer on SkyTrain or local bus.
* Fixed price Commuter/Express Bus rates. Something like $5.00 from door to door, non-stop. Ticket includes free transfer on SkyTrain or local bus.
* Fixed distance pricing on Commuter Rail. Includes free transfer on SkyTrain or 2 hour transfer on local bus.
* Car Rental premium (for Transit) [system-wide funding source]
* Visitor Hotel premium (for Transit) [system-wide funding source]
* Airport Taxi tax (??) [system-wide funding source]
* Local Taxi tax [local funding source, destination based]

[aberdeen5698]

If Surrey and the Broadway Corridor are to be given "equal priority" for transit, then IMHO that means spending an equal amount of money on them. It that's really true, then if we were to spend a billion or so on extending Skytrain along Broadway, we ought to be spending a billion on improving transit in Surrey as well.

Framed in those terms, the question really isn't "Vancouver vs. Surrey", it's really "what's the best way to spend the money in Surrey?"

It seems to me that if you have a billion or so to spend on transit in Surrey you'll find that it goes a LOT further when used to add / upgrade bus routes across the city than if it's spent on a single Skytrain line which adds few more stations along one corridor.

Surrey already has a direct Skytrain connection to North of Fraser along the most important transportation corridor. It seems to me that what it lacks is the kind of well-interconnected frequent service grid that Vancouver has to allow easy travel within the area. You can't build that kind of grid with Skytrain, it's got to be with buses. Buses are the cheapest way to get the most pervasive and frequent service, and IMHO that's what Surrey needs.

[satishreddy]

If Surrey and the Broadway Corridor are to be given "equal priority" for transit, then IMHO that means spending an equal amount of money on them. It that's really true, then if we were to spend a billion or so on extending Skytrain along Broadway, we ought to be spending a billion on improving transit in Surrey as well.

Framed in those terms, the question really isn't "Vancouver vs. Surrey", it's really "what's the best way to spend the money in Surrey?"

It seems to me that if you have a billion or so to spend on transit in Surrey you'll find that it goes a LOT further when used to add / upgrade bus routes across the city than if it's spent on a single Skytrain line which adds few more stations along one corridor.

Surrey already has a direct Skytrain connection to North of Fraser along the most important transportation corridor. It seems to me that what it lacks is the kind of well-interconnected frequent service grid that Vancouver has to allow easy travel within the area. You can't build that kind of grid with Skytrain, it's got to be with buses. Buses are the cheapest way to get the most pervasive and frequent service, and IMHO that's what Surrey needs.

There is a reason why Surrey doesn't have well-connected frequent service like Vancouver. It doesn't have the density.

According to the 2006 Census, Surrey has about 395K people and 122.5 sq miles, which gives a density of about 3225 people per square mile. Of course there are pockets of higher density and areas of lower density. If one wants to build a bus sytem on a grid, then the buses will have to go through the low density, as well as the high density places.

According to the 2006 Census, Vancouver has about 578K people and 44.3 sq miles, which gives an average density of 13047 people per square mile. Even if we exclude the 80K that live in downtown Vancouver, the density in the rest of Vancouver is 11242 people per square mile on average.

The density outside of downtown Vancouver is about 3.5 times that of Surrey. In general, if there are an equal number of bus stops in a square mile in both cities, there are 3.5 times more potential customers in Vancouver in than in Surrey per bus stop.

I have not accounted for density of jobs. But in general, there are more destinations such as schools, jobs, tourist locations, etc in Vancouver than in Surrey.

The bottom line is that to operate "Vancouver-level" bus service in Surrey would require a massive subsidy, much bigger than the one to operate the same service in Vancouver.

In Fall 2009 there was a review by the Ministry of Finance regarding the BC Ferries and Translink.

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/ias/pdf_Docs/transportation_governance.pdf

At that time Translink had a large structural deficit. On page 75 of the report it is stated:

The majority of the $130 million structural deficit faced by the Translink is a result of factors other than Canada Line, such as the increase in the operational cost of the bus fleet, particularly into lower ridership, geographically sparse areas.

[allan_kuan]

The density argument frankly is sort of sitting on unstable soil. There's enough ridership on several corridors to justify say BRT or maybe even LRT.

What I would be concerned about is whether Surrey can tap into those rapid transit plans and make them actually more cost effective over time through TOD developments (and no, suburb expansion and park and rides don't count!), because at the moment it doesn't seem like they'll want to do anything other than suburbs and townhomes that essentially squander any development potential and reduce the region's ability to recoup costs. Remember that rapid transit in particular is a very big investment; and unlike before with the politicized Millennium Line, TransLink now has to be able to see how it can get more ridership and pay off the line down the road. Unfortunately, Surrey atm hasn't offered anything of late other than a City Centre redevelop which by itself can be served by the Expo Line already.