[SpongeG]

i timed it on my watch - maybe it was a saturday - but i sent 13 minutes waiting on the platform and i never saw one leave when i was transferring, one evening last month or so ago - the people beside me were getting annoyed - they seemed to be car drivers who used the train to go to the soccer game or something cause they didn't seem impressed with the long wait time

[nname]

Well, that might just due to a delay. For a train every 8 minutes, if you take out one train, then there is a 16 minutes gap. Usually they will insert a train that is parked near VCC, Holdom, or Lougheed to fill the gap, but that train might not available during some times, such as peak hours or game/event services.

I remember one day last month, there was a westbound train that broke down at Lougheed just after the end of morning peak. While they move it out of the way, it also delayed the next train by 6 minutes and bunch it together with a third train. As a result, it created a 6+6+6=18 minutes gap between trains followed by two trains that run closely together. The parked train at Holdom was used to fill the gap (one benefit of automation!), and I expect they'll use the other train parked at VCC to restore the 6min headway eastbound while taking one of the bunching train out of service and park it at VCC tail track. The spare train at Holdom would probably be replaced by a new train out of OMC. While this delay was restored quickly and would not be even noticeable when the train turned around going back east, those who waited westbound at Production, Lake City, and Sperling would face a horrible wait time of up to 18 minutes and those west of Holdom would probably have to wait closer to 10 minutes.

[twoNeurons]

Let that be a lesson for you SpongeG... never challenge nname's numbers. He's the statistics king on these boards. :-)

cornholio, of course there will be many who stick to the WCE, but all I'm saying that comfort isn't everything.

EG trains will be a lot more convenient and from Port Moody, you likely have a better chance at a seat. If you're not on salary or you're on a strict schedule, you may be able to leave home later by taking the EG line, which essentially shortens your commute.

Many aren't able to work enroute.

There are obviously more options to stop on the EG line, but I'd imagine that anyone who works downtown will likely do any errands they need to do there over stopping at Commercial, Lougheed or Brentwood Mall.

The walk from Commercial to Broadway is nowhere NEAR 5 minutes and in many cases you don't really wait for the train when doing the transfer to Expo.

I will agree that faregates will do little to stop determined fare evaders. It WILL force people to buy the correct number of zones on their tickets, which sucks if you're only travelling 1 or 2 stops.

Check out the disparity in these images:
Joyce Skytrain to Broadway Corridor
http://i.imgur.com/i6ilOh.png

Joyce to Metrotown
http://i.imgur.com/8iSvxh.png

Joyce to Ikea
http://i.imgur.com/SgeWjh.png

While it's true that faregates won't technically cost more, I'm sure there are more than a few people who ride the train that one extra stop without paying the additional zone because of the unfairness. (no pun intended)

This is particularly evident when travelling Rupert to Gilmore, Joyce to Patterson.

I would like to see a more graduated distance based system. I'm not entirely sure what it should look like, but I do think that faregates will allow for a more fair system overall... although it may add some complexity.

[Dave2]

They should, since its going to be all 2-car trains when Evergreen opens, so it should be theoretically twice as frequent to keep the same capacity

Ugh, really? I had hoped that the era of the 2car MK-II ended with the 48 "300 series" cars. Sure, every 3 minutes beats every 5-6, but human nature being what it is, people at Commercial/Broadway E/B in the PM rush will stuff those 2 car MK-II trains to capacity, and beyond. (And by 2016, more towers will be completed at Brentwood, Morrey Nissan site is now being cleared.

[twoNeurons]

Ugh, really? I had hoped that the era of the 2car MK-II ended with the 48 "300 series" cars. Sure, every 3 minutes beats every 5-6, but human nature being what it is, people at Commercial/Broadway E/B in the PM rush will stuff those 2 car MK-II trains to capacity, and beyond. (And by 2016, more towers will be completed at Brentwood, Morrey Nissan site is now being cleared.

Trains that come more often will allow the platform at Commercial to be cleared twice as often. You'll have fewer people waiting for the train and more people willing to wait for the next train Assuming it's full. With 6 minute frequencies, people will be more likely to force themselves onto the train, as they don't want to wait.

In addition, since Commercial is essentially a terminus station, you're loading a lot of passengers at the same time. More frequent, shorter trains mean the station will be less crowded.

Translink has the choice to either double train length or increase frequency on the M-Line.

I choose frequency.

[aberdeen5698]

Translink has the choice to either double train length or increase frequency on the M-Line.

I choose frequency.Right on. The beauty of an automated system is that you can increase frequency for virtually zero cost. There's no difference in capacity running two-car trains every three minutes vs. four-car trains every six minutes, but as you say the stations will be less crowded and the total trip time for the average traveler will be 3 minutes shorter.

There really isn't any good reason to run longer trains at less frequent intervals. You only need to go to longer trains when you're approaching minimum frequencies.

[red-paladin]

Right on. The beauty of an automated system is that you can increase frequency for virtually zero cost. There's no difference in capacity running two-car trains every three minutes vs. four-car trains every six minutes, but as you say the stations will be less crowded and the total trip time for the average traveler will be 3 minutes shorter.

There really isn't any good reason to run longer trains at less frequent intervals. You only need to go to longer trains when you're approaching minimum frequencies.

I agree also. If the ridership is higher than expected they can always throw a few longer trains into service that day, or reassign them from the Expo Line, another beauty of driverless trains.

[officedweller]

Re-Allignment of the proposed M-Line extension through the GNW Campus to allow for an office building.
This shifts the station location towards Thornton & Great Northern Way.

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20120418/documents/ptec1.pdf

[jlousa]

Saw that this morning, really looks like the COV is set on RRT, at least for part of the route.

[jsbertram]

Saw that this morning, really looks like the COV is set on RRT, at least for part of the route.

It also appears that COV planners want to put the RRT alignment under Brunswick St which ends at Broadway, which implies that the UBC line will be running under Broadway westwards from this intersection.

If they were to 'jog' the line east a block over to Prince Edward St - running under Guelph Park - then the line could run past Broadway for a block and skirt the eastern edge of Kingsgate Mall to turn west into a 10th Avenue alignment

Once the tunnels are on the 10th Ave alignment, its a 'straight shot' to UBC, and any construction causing road closures would have a minimal impact on Broadway itself. They might be boring tunnels to UBC (pun intended), but a 'straight shot' alignment == easier to build == cheaper construction costs.

[nname]

I don't think it matters. No matter which road they choose, the TBM will have to bore the tunnel under properties as the 90 degree sharp turn (or 80 degree for some streets) would be too much for any type of rail transit.

[twoNeurons]

The two alternatives, as far as I can see:
http://i.imgur.com/u7eQ2.jpg

[jsbertram]

The two alternatives, as far as I can see:
http://i.imgur.com/u7eQ2.jpg

A good picture can save a thousand words.

The Prince Edward (Red) routing only has to run under the east parking lot, but the Brunswick (Green) routing has to go under the mall buildings. (don't be tricked by the roof-top parking for the Buy-Low Foods customers)

Unless Kingsgate Mall is going to be redeveloped at the same time that the Skytrain tunnels are being built under it, I think they would prefer the Prince Edward alignment to get to 10th Ave, since that alignment avoids the mall buildings.

[red-paladin]

Saw that this morning, really looks like the COV is set on RRT, at least for part of the route.

Excellent! Even a broken clock is right twice a day I suppose.

[trofirhen]

Nice to see this part of the transit system on the front burner (or at least so it seems) again.

[Vestry]

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?

[red-paladin]

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?

The picture? Translink does discuss it as an option.

[trofirhen]

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?
:previous:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that looking in retrospect at the Canada Line construction on Cambie, and the finacial and legal turmoil that resulted, it was thought better to drill under 10th avenue, thereby not creating masses of lawsuits from Broadway merchants saying they had lost their business because the street was ripped up and inaccessible. It's going to be hard on the residents of 10th avenue, but that also depends largely on whether it's built cut-and-cover, or bored tunnel.

[officedweller]

The "Broadway Corridor" has been defined previously as from 8th Ave to 10th Ave.

10th Ave has historically been touted as the allignment because of fewer services under the roadway. Even if the tunnel is bored under Broadway, there would likely still need to be open pit excavation on Broadway for stations - and underground utilities would still hamper construction.

8th Ave. is a "no-go" because of a GVRD trunk sewer located under it.

Also, for the station at Oak (as for the Canada Line, Broadway - City Hall Station) - the station can be built into the hillside, reducing the number of escalators required to access platforms.

I could easily see the line being built "stacked" under 10th Ave since station access can be restricted to the north side only.

Where is the assumption for the 10th Avenue alignment coming from?

Background here - under "Beyond the B-Line" (full report) - this also shows the Prince Edward St allignment:

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/ubcline/previous.htm

[huenthar]

Why are they not looking at bringing it under Broadway sooner, with a station at Fraser/Broadway instead of GNW? The flats already have stations 500m away at VCC and at Main, and students etc can always ride the 84/replacement local bus along GNW/2nd - and if future development reaaally needs a new "closer" station in the Flats, the Expo line is <200m away on a flat alignment on Terminal.

Alternately, you could bring the guideway right over the roof of the low building by VCC-clark (forget who's in it) and bore the tunnel entrance into the steep northern hillside of China Creek park (where there's some crappy landscaping and nothing else). Several major advantages:

1. shorter route, and straighter route; = faster trip times; = cheaper construction costs
2. ridership; at GNW there will be a few hundred to a thousand students & employees, and a few residents across the street; whereas Fraser has a couple thousand residents in the catchment area (more riders, & much greater off-peak utilization), and riders off the busy #8
3. a GNW station serves only GNW campus; whereas a Fraser station greatly strengthens the bus service for the #8 bus line, thus somewhat serving trip times for the whole Fraser corridor (aside: the 22 will need to be tied in with VCC-Clark much better as well)
4. redundancy; as noted there are 2 other existing stations 500m away from GNW campus; the potential to build an Expo line station on Terminal if demand warrants it (I doubt it); and bus service along GNW could easily meet the demand (2-3 stops to either of two existing stations). Why are we building another km of guideway parallel to the existing route instead of spreading the system out as much as possible?
5. other than the campus itself, why would we want to encourage denser development of the Flats? Not only is it low-lying on mud and rubble (earthquake danger, like Richmond), it's excellently sited at the terminus of major rail corridors and as such is great for continuing to serve largely industrial uses (and many of you decry the relative lack of industrial mixed-use in the city proper, so...). Leave the Flats for industrial and the streetcar OMC.

Also, does anyone know if for option 'A' of the RRT option (from Commercial) if they evaluated it as if it were also a Millennium Line extension (ie abandon VCC-Clark), or did they assume it was a separate system? I really wonder if the expense of the extra length and complication of the route to bring it back under Broadway outweighs the expense of rebuilding that section by tunnelling right from Commercial-Broadway in a straight line all the way...

[Zassk]

^^ All good questions. I often wonder what the real dollar-value of the existing VCC-Clark station is, and whether abandoning it after only 10 years might actually be the best choice long-term.

[jsbertram]

I'm not sure which low-rise building near VCC-Clark you are referring to, but the closest one is SHAW cable, and the next one westwards is Albion Fisheries.

The current Millennium line tail tracks and storage track west of the station extend several hundred feet west of Glen Dr over the north parking lot of Albion Fisheries, so there isn't an easy way to change the direction of the tracks until they are past the QLT building. Furthermore. the Albion site is being knocked over so the new MEC world HQ can be built on the site. The approved redevelopment plans don't include a ROW for the M-Line to curve southwards over their property (between the new MEC buildings and the QLT building)

The green space west of QLT is reserved for a future building, so the earliest opportunity for curving the tracks south is at Foley St & GNW. Unfortunately there are people living there south of the Foley St & GNW intersection, so the next opportunity for curving the tracks south is at Fraser St & GNW.

However, the curve westwards at Fraser & Broadway is unlikely to be do-able now because the new tower on the NW corner of Fraser & Broadway has recently been approved & demolition of the old buildings there is almost done. If COV was serious about running the M-Line under Fraser to Broadway (and then westwards to UBC), they would have made provisions for the ROW under this new building, and I haven't seen anything to indicate there is a 'rapid transit tunnel corridor' planned for running under this property.


Running the M-Line westwards along the northern edge of the GNW campus (over a strip of the adjacent rail yard) is easier to do than to get the guideway over, around or through existing buildings. Today, the GNW campus may seem lightly used and under-developed, but the COV planners are expecting the rail lines & yards between Main St, GNW, Clark Dr, and Terminal to be removed (perhaps not in our lifetimes) so the False Creek Flats can be redeveloped as light industrial sites and high-density urban housing for tens of thousands of people (think Olympic Village without the waterfront).

Having an M-Line station at GNW & Prince Edward (aka Brunswick & E 2nd) could be the False Creek Flats 'transit hub' station centered between Clark Dr and Main St for the future workers and residents of the area, but still allow for a relatively easy southwards alignment to Broadway or 10th Ave.

[jsbertram]

...

Also, does anyone know if for option 'A' of the RRT option (from Commercial) if they evaluated it as if it were also a Millennium Line extension (ie abandon VCC-Clark), or did they assume it was a separate system? I really wonder if the expense of the extra length and complication of the route to bring it back under Broadway outweighs the expense of rebuilding that section by tunnelling right from Commercial-Broadway in a straight line all the way...

It is my understanding that 'Option A' was for a separate train system that wouldn't interline with Expo or Millennium trains.

The glaring problem with it was there was no place for the OMC to be put anywhere along the Broadway corridor. An idea was to have the OMC somewhere east of the Grandview Cut, but now these 'deadhead' trains would be running in the cut parallel with the M-Line guideway for several miles between the OMC and the first station at Commercial & Broadway.

This is also a problem with the LRT options: Where could the OMC be located?

[racc]

:previous:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that looking in retrospect at the Canada Line construction on Cambie, and the finacial and legal turmoil that resulted, it was thought better to drill under 10th avenue, thereby not creating masses of lawsuits from Broadway merchants saying they had lost their business because the street was ripped up and inaccessible. It's going to be hard on the residents of 10th avenue, but that also depends largely on whether it's built cut-and-cover, or bored tunnel.

10th Avenue has been the obvious choice for years before the Cambie construction. As a major transit corridor, it would be really disruptive having the line built along Broadway especially with the station pits. 10th is also higher than Broadway meaning that the access to underground stations is working with the grade thus thus the station access times would be lower. Also, 10th is a straight shot to UBC and would not require a curve at Alma.

[aberdeen5698]

10th is also higher than Broadway meaning that the access to underground stations is working with the grade thus thus the station access times would be lower.This only works for the westbound platforms. Eastbound or center platforms would still require stairs / escalators / elevators in order to shuttle people to the other side of the westbound track.

Also, the grade differential between 10th and Broadway would only apply to a few stations.

[Metro-One]

:previous:hence they would likely used stalked stations. So one does not need to go under and back up.

[racc]

This only works for the westbound platforms. Eastbound or center platforms would still require stairs / escalators / elevators in order to shuttle people to the other side of the westbound track.

Also, the grade differential between 10th and Broadway would only apply to a few stations.

The distance to the surface is less from both platforms and a few stations is better than none.

[squeezied]

If the east and west bound tunnels are going to stacked that means construction will be cut and cover, akin to the canada line construction. I thought the tunnels will be bored and side by side.

[jsbertram]

If the east and west bound tunnels are going to stacked that means construction will be cut and cover, akin to the canada line construction. I thought the tunnels will be bored and side by side.

Why can't the TBM bore stacked tubes?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Trains are usually taller than wide, so stacking them vertically would need a larger bore diameter.

You would also need to have some space between the rail levels in the stations or hideously low ceilings. With either you would have to build transitions coming in every station from the main bore diameter to the station level.

[huenthar]

I'm not sure which low-rise building near VCC-Clark you are referring to, but the closest one is SHAW cable, and the next one westwards is Albion Fisheries.

The current Millennium line tail tracks and storage track west of the station extend several hundred feet west of Glen Dr over the north parking lot of Albion Fisheries, so there isn't an easy way to change the direction of the tracks until they are past the QLT building. Furthermore. the Albion site is being knocked over so the new MEC world HQ can be built on the site. The approved redevelopment plans don't include a ROW for the M-Line to curve southwards over their property (between the new MEC buildings and the QLT building)

The green space west of QLT is reserved for a future building, so the earliest opportunity for curving the tracks south is at Foley St & GNW. Unfortunately there are people living there south of the Foley St & GNW intersection, so the next opportunity for curving the tracks south is at Fraser St & GNW.

However, the curve westwards at Fraser & Broadway is unlikely to be do-able now because the new tower on the NW corner of Fraser & Broadway has recently been approved & demolition of the old buildings there is almost done. If COV was serious about running the M-Line under Fraser to Broadway (and then westwards to UBC), they would have made provisions for the ROW under this new building, and I haven't seen anything to indicate there is a 'rapid transit tunnel corridor' planned for running under this property.


Running the M-Line westwards along the northern edge of the GNW campus (over a strip of the adjacent rail yard) is easier to do than to get the guideway over, around or through existing buildings. Today, the GNW campus may seem lightly used and under-developed, but the COV planners are expecting the rail lines & yards between Main St, GNW, Clark Dr, and Terminal to be removed (perhaps not in our lifetimes) so the False Creek Flats can be redeveloped as light industrial sites and high-density urban housing for tens of thousands of people (think Olympic Village without the waterfront).

Having an M-Line station at GNW & Prince Edward (aka Brunswick & E 2nd) could be the False Creek Flats 'transit hub' station centered between Clark Dr and Main St for the future workers and residents of the area, but still allow for a relatively easy southwards alignment to Broadway or 10th Ave.

Albion Fisheries, that's the building I was thinking of - having the tracks going up over that building and into the hillside of the park. But if it's being redeveloped in the near future, it's not too late to work in a ROW with the development plans - sounds more like a perfect opportunity to me. If this happened and the line entered a tunnel at China Creek Park, it could run diagonally beneath the lowrise apts and houses in the area and reach Broadway east of the tower site on the NW corner (would have been better under that site...). Or (looking at the map again now), what are the plans for the Shaw parking lot right next to the station? If the tracks are rebuilt to curve right out of the station they could run over that lot and through the tip of the SW corner of the Albion/MEC HQ site and along GNW to get to a tunnel portal in the hillside of the park.

In any case it would mean rebuilding the tail tracks of course - I would think service to VCC should still be possible while that goes on, but if not, well, they already shut down VCC regularly for silly random events and meetings... they could shut it down for a few months in the summer when they need to connect the new tracks to the old.

[Valley_Refugee]

It is my understanding that 'Option A' was for a separate train system that wouldn't interline with Expo or Millennium trains.

The glaring problem with it was there was no place for the OMC to be put anywhere along the Broadway corridor. An idea was to have the OMC somewhere east of the Grandview Cut, but now these 'deadhead' trains would be running in the cut parallel with the M-Line guideway for several miles between the OMC and the first station at Commercial & Broadway.

I'm fairly certain Option A has always been planned as an extension of the Millennium Line.

[officedweller]

Why are they not looking at bringing it under Broadway sooner, with a station at Fraser/Broadway instead of GNW? The flats already have stations 500m away at VCC and at Main, and students etc can always ride the 84/replacement local bus along GNW/2nd - and if future development reaaally needs a new "closer" station in the Flats, the Expo line is <200m away on a flat alignment on Terminal.

...

Also, does anyone know if for option 'A' of the RRT option (from Commercial) if they evaluated it as if it were also a Millennium Line extension (ie abandon VCC-Clark), or did they assume it was a separate system? I really wonder if the expense of the extra length and complication of the route to bring it back under Broadway outweighs the expense of rebuilding that section by tunnelling right from Commercial-Broadway in a straight line all the way...

Originally, the Millennium Line allignment was to terminate under Broadway in front of VCC - but the City of Vancouver wanted to relocate it to the present site to encourage development of high tech office space on the False Creek Flats (i.e at the future Finning Station).

A couple of issues raised at the time included having to cut and cover the VCC station on Broadway (causing major disruption because of soft soils due to the underground China Creek. I expect that running the line "under the park" (China Creek Park) would encounter issues with the underground creek.

So that decision has essentially been made - that the line will not run past Fraser & Broadway.

WRT RRT Option A - I have always thought it was an extension of the Millennium Line.

[jsbertram]

The Spring 2011 Phase 2 Design Guide (page 7 for those of you who are following along) shows option "A" under Broadway between Main and Commercial, but it appears that there wouldn't be a track connection to either the Expo or Millennium lines at Broadway & Commercial.

Option "B" is the continuation of the Millennium line westward from VCC-Clark to Broadway & Main.

West of Main St, both options would tunnel under Broadway & W10th to UBC.

The Spring 2012 revisions have dropped the RRT option "A", so the RRT preference is the continuation of the Millennium line.

[Dave2]

The Spring 2012 revisions have dropped the RRT option "A", so the RRT preference is the continuation of the Millennium line.

VCC-Clark is the obvious choice for starting the Millennium Line Extension.. or should it now be called the Evergreen Line Extension.

Come to think of it, the name "Evergreen" was the name chosen when the line was going to be LRT (my entry, "Tragic Mistake", didn't make the cut)... If the service pattern is going to be Douglas Collage to VCC Clark, with trains from Waterfront terminating at King George or Lougheed Town Centre, the name "Evergreen" should be dropped.

Millennium Line runs from Douglas Collage to VCC-Clark, and trains from Waterfront would all be "Expo Line", to either King George or Lougheed Town Centre.. Many cities have lines with the same name/number that split to serve different destinations at their extremities. The 5 in NYC, the Picadilly in London.. and the Canada Line in Vancouver.. Then only Braid and Sapparton need to be rebranded. just mho

[deasine]

VCC-Clark is the obvious choice for starting the Millennium Line Extension.. or should it now be called the Evergreen Line Extension.

Come to think of it, the name "Evergreen" was the name chosen when the line was going to be LRT (my entry, "Tragic Mistake", didn't make the cut)... If the service pattern is going to be Douglas Collage to VCC Clark, with trains from Waterfront terminating at King George or Lougheed Town Centre, the name "Evergreen" should be dropped.

Millennium Line runs from Douglas Collage to VCC-Clark, and trains from Waterfront would all be "Expo Line", to either King George or Lougheed Town Centre.. Many cities have lines with the same name/number that split to serve different destinations at their extremities. The 5 in NYC, the Picadilly in London.. and the Canada Line in Vancouver.. Then only Braid and Sapparton need to be rebranded. just mho

Agreed.

[SFUVancouver]

The Albion fisheries building is going to be demolished pretty soon and Mountain Equipment Co-op will build their new headquarters on the site. Due to this a SkyTrain line over the building and plunging into the hillside of the adjacent park is a non-starter.

[queetz@home]

VCC-Clark is the obvious choice for starting the Millennium Line Extension.. or should it now be called the Evergreen Line Extension.



I must have missed it but since when was it announced that the name for the existing Millenium Line would be changed (presumably at 2016??) to Evergreen Line? I always thought Millenium would remain as is (including any Broadway Skytrain extension) and Evergreen Line would just refer to Lougheed Mall to Douglas.

[aberdeen5698]

I must have missed it but since when was it announced that the name for the existing Millenium Line would be changed (presumably at 2016??) to Evergreen Line?I'm pretty sure that nothing official has been announced. But if the majority of trains on the Evergreen extension are going to be running through from PoCo to VCC/Clarke, then it makes sense to have a single name for the "line" or route that they run.

[red-paladin]

UBC is full of evergreen trees too, so I don't see a fundamental problem.
Although I was one of the people that suggested the name (For the trees in the Tri Cities and so that the line can be green on the map) so I'm a bit biased!

[trofirhen]

VCC-Clark is the obvious choice for starting the Millennium Line Extension.. or should it now be called the Evergreen Line Extension.

Come to think of it, the name "Evergreen" was the name chosen when the line was going to be LRT (my entry, "Tragic Mistake", didn't make the cut)... If the service pattern is going to be Douglas Collage to VCC Clark, with trains from Waterfront terminating at King George or Lougheed Town Centre, the name "Evergreen" should be dropped.

Millennium Line runs from Douglas Collage to VCC-Clark, and trains from Waterfront would all be "Expo Line", to either King George or Lougheed Town Centre.. Many cities have lines with the same name/number that split to serve different destinations at their extremities. The 5 in NYC, the Picadilly in London.. and the Canada Line in Vancouver.. Then only Braid and Sapparton need to be rebranded. just mho
:previous: :yes:

I think you got it. The issue is being complexified here.. Your suggestion would eliminate the name "Evergreen Line," but is that a problem? Some will squawk "yes," but I do'nt think it matters one bit if Douglas College Coquitlam >> UBC is all Millenium Line.

All trains from Waterfront following current Millenium/Expo Line become Expo Line and simply for and split (as they do in many citiies, as you say. (Stockholm is another very overt example of this). Then the Braid-Sapperton portion gets renamed; sort of forming a loop-link type of line to connect New West and Lougheed Town Centre............. ?

Did I get it right? I think it's a great and schematically simplified idea.

[dleung]

While we're at it, it'll be nice to lose the "canada line" name... it makes visitors think the nation has only one rapid-transit line.

[deasine]

^Too bad it seems like that name will stay.

:previous: :yes:

I think you got it. The issue is being complexified here.. Your suggestion would eliminate the name "Evergreen Line," but is that a problem? Some will squawk "yes," but I do'nt think it matters one bit if Douglas College Coquitlam >> UBC is all Millenium Line.

All trains from Waterfront following current Millenium/Expo Line become Expo Line and simply for and split (as they do in many citiies, as you say. (Stockholm is another very overt example of this). Then the Braid-Sapperton portion gets renamed; sort of forming a loop-link type of line to connect New West and Lougheed Town Centre............. ?

Did I get it right? I think it's a great and schematically simplified idea.

From what we've discussed earlier, Braid and Sapperton will be part of a Waterfront-Lougheed service, rather than a shuttle train operation. Hence... I think it should be

Waterfront <-> King George = Expo Line
Waterfront <-> Lougheed via Braid/Sapperton = Expo Line

and

VCC-Clark <-> Douglas College = Millennium Line

(or Evergreen Line)

But I prefer Millennium Line for the sake so that we don't have to rebrand so many stations.

[andasen]

I believe if memory serves me correct that the line which is going to travel from Douglas to VCC-Clark (and beyond) is actually going to be named something else altogether. The componant pieces will maintain their names in technical situations but they will rebrand the entire service to prevent confusion. I will see if I can dig up more information on this. It seems to me that it was in the RFP for the evergreen line. I'll report back.

[dleung]

^Too bad it seems like that name will stay.

The weird thing is that the Feds have committed to nearly the same amount of money for the Evergreen Line ($417 million), or 30% the cost, compared to 25% of the cost of the Canada Line. Meanwhile the $2.6 bilion Spadina extension in Toronto - with a projected ridership similar to the Evergreen line - got $700 million from the Feds, or 27%. The Feds will also be expected to contribute 1/3 of the $17.5 billion cost of Transit City (6 billion). So why did the Canada Line get the retarded name?

[Meraki]

The weird thing is that the Feds have committed to nearly the same amount of money for the Evergreen Line ($417 million), or 30% the cost, compared to 25% of the cost of the Canada Line. Meanwhile the $2.6 bilion Spadina extension in Toronto - with a projected ridership similar to the Evergreen line - got $700 million from the Feds, or 27%. The Feds will also be expected to contribute 1/3 of the $17.5 billion cost of Transit City (6 billion). So why did the Canada Line get the retarded name?

One possible explanation is that the Canada Line never had a real confirmed name during planning/construction. RAV Line was always just meant to be a temporary identification for the project. This left the federal government open to demand it be called (for no logical reason) the Canada Line rather than Olympic Line to fit in with the naming of the other two.

The Evergreen Line has had that name in the planning phases and they probably thought it wasn't worth the effort to impose a name change when the line already has name recognition as Evergreen. Besides, what would the Feds suggest it be named? The only thing other than Canada would be Harper, and that certainly wouldn't go over well.

[trofirhen]

While we're at it, it'll be nice to lose the "canada line" name... it makes visitors think the nation has only one rapid-transit line.
:previous:
I agree, it's hokey. Renaming the system by colour reference or maybe numbering or lettering the line names would be better. European cities and Asian cities often do that.

I believe if memory serves me correct that the line which is going to travel from Douglas to VCC-Clark (and beyond) is actually going to be named something else altogether. The componant pieces will maintain their names in technical situations but they will rebrand the entire service to prevent confusion. I will see if I can dig up more information on this. It seems to me that it was in the RFP for the evergreen line. I'll report back.
:previous:
Good stuff. Hope it works out better.
The weird thing is that the Feds have committed to nearly the same amount of money for the Evergreen Line ($417 million), or 30% the cost, compared to 25% of the cost of the Canada Line. Meanwhile the $2.6 bilion Spadina extension in Toronto - with a projected ridership similar to the Evergreen line - got $700 million from the Feds, or 27%. The Feds will also be expected to contribute 1/3 of the $17.5 billion cost of Transit City (6 billion). So why did the Canada Line get the retarded name?
:previous::previous:
Regarding the name Canada Line, maybe this was to move away from local concepts and event names like Expo 86, and the year 2000, and choose something more "universal." So maybe that's partly why, complemented by the YVR terminus, as a sort of "you're in Canada now; Welcome" thing. Not sure if the name was officially related to federal $$ contribution or not.

Regarding the $$ the feds are heaping into into Toronto transit infrastructure, especially Transit City ........ That's where the majority of the people are, where the majority of the votes are, and the majority of Paliamentary seats there are to be won. Politicians know which side their bread is buttered on.

[twoNeurons]

:previous:
I agree, it's hokey. Renaming the system by colour reference or maybe numbering or lettering the line names would be better. European cities and Asian cities often do that.



London uses names.
Tokyo uses names.
Osaka uses names.
Kuala Lumpur doesn't.
Beijing appears to use numbers.
Shanghai appears to use numbers.
Moscow seems to use both
St. Petersburg seems to use both
Rome uses letters

It seems to me that cities that started with only planning one line at a time and slowly building out the network have named lines, whereas cities that had comprehensive plans and quickly built out a system numbered the lines.

The Millennium Line, when it was originally being built was a Phase I and Phase II system. Phase I was Lougheed to Commercial. Phase II was Commercial to Granville and Lougheed to Coquitlam.

VCC Station was an addition to (imho) encourage the line to be continued. VCC gives the line the feeling that it is incomplete as it's not a natural terminus.

When the current political party came into power, they axed phase II.

Therefore, the EG Line and the Central Broadway line were originally just the Millennium Line.

The Canada line couldn't be called the Olympic Line because of sensitivities at the time. The RAV line wasn't included in the Olympics cost and so it would have been fodder for Olympic opposition.

[DKaz]

Canada Line is down between Broadway-City Hall and Waterfront. A Millennium Line extension would've at least allowed passengers to scoot over to the Expo Line since the bus bridge is not holding up apparently.

[nname]

And we just had an Expo broke down last week during morning peak. Having the Millennium Line connect to Canada Line would at least provide enough redundancy for both situations...

[racc]

It seems to me that cities that started with only planning one line at a time and slowly building out the network have named lines, whereas cities that had comprehensive plans and quickly built out a system numbered the lines.

The Millennium Line, when it was originally being built was a Phase I and Phase II system. Phase I was Lougheed to Commercial. Phase II was Commercial to Granville and Lougheed to Coquitlam.

VCC Station was an addition to (imho) encourage the line to be continued. VCC gives the line the feeling that it is incomplete as it's not a natural terminus.

When the current political party came into power, they axed phase II.

Therefore, the EG Line and the Central Broadway line were originally just the Millennium Line.

Or the Premier at the time wanted it to end at Glen and Clark Drives :)

[twoNeurons]

Or the Premier at the time wanted it to end at Glen and Clark Drives :)

That's an urban legend, isn't it? Probably something taken out of context. Funny, though.

[jsbertram]

That's an urban legend, isn't it? Probably something taken out of context. Funny, though.

I heard years ago that VCC-Clark was almost named "Glen Clark Station" because (wink*wink*nudge*nudge) the station was between Glen St and Clark Dr. Fortunately Premier Clark was tossed out before the station was finished, so VCC Station (for nearby Vancouver Community College) was used instead.

It doesn't help that there's another VCC Station on the C-Line, although most of the announcements call it Vancouver City Centre instead of the short form.

[nname]

I heard years ago that VCC-Clark was almost named "Glen Clark Station" because (wink*wink*nudge*nudge) the station was between Glen St and Clark Dr. Fortunately Premier Clark was tossed out before the station was finished, so VCC Station (for nearby Vancouver Community College) was used instead.

It doesn't help that there's another VCC Station on the C-Line, although most of the announcements call it Vancouver City Centre instead of the short form.

The official abbreviation for Vancouver City Centre station is actually VS, but probably no one would know what you're talking about if you call it that way ;)

[jsbertram]

I believe if memory serves me correct that the line which is going to travel from Douglas to VCC-Clark (and beyond) is actually going to be named something else altogether. The componant pieces will maintain their names in technical situations but they will rebrand the entire service to prevent confusion. I will see if I can dig up more information on this. It seems to me that it was in the RFP for the evergreen line. I'll report back.

I recall seeing a presentation in 2009 showing how Translink was planning for future Skytrain upgrades and modelling new Skytrain routes including the extension westwards from VCC-Clark.

One idea was that the new Evergreen Line would become a separate Skytrain route from Douglas through Lougheed to VCC-Clark (and then onwards to UBC).

Expo would continue as its own separate route from Waterfront to King George.

Millennium would interline with Expo (as it does today), but only run between Waterfront and Lougheed Station. This would provide the necessary service to the stations between Columbia and Lougheed, but also provide extra (relatively empty) inbound trains starting at Columbia for the AM rush.

Translink was leaning towards this form of service because their models showed it needed the least number of new Skytrain cars (which were received in time for the Olympics) and they wouldn't need to expand the fleet again until 2026.

[officedweller]

Since the current naming system using a "route" to name a "line" - I can see any route starting at Douglas College and heading westwards to be the "Evergreen Line".

I can also see the "Millennium Line" truncated at Lougheed Town Centre compared to its present route.

[jsbertram]

The official abbreviation for Vancouver City Centre station is actually VS, but probably no one would know what you're talking about if you call it that way ;)

It doesn't help that there was already a "Vancouver Centre" on that corner before the C-Line station was built - the ScotiaBank office tower and the Vancouver Centre Mall that connects Vancouver City Centre Station to The Bay.

[cornholio]

That's an urban legend, isn't it? Probably something taken out of context. Funny, though.

Well the Evergreen line under Falcon's leadership always had a Falcon station which was not located in the most ideal spot. The moment he switched positions in government the station disappeared from the plans.

[cornholio]

London uses names.
Tokyo uses names.
Osaka uses names.
Kuala Lumpur doesn't.
Beijing appears to use numbers.
Shanghai appears to use numbers.
Moscow seems to use both
St. Petersburg seems to use both
Rome uses letters

It seems to me that cities that started with only planning one line at a time and slowly building out the network have named lines, whereas cities that had comprehensive plans and quickly built out a system numbered the lines.

The Millennium Line, when it was originally being built was a Phase I and Phase II system. Phase I was Lougheed to Commercial. Phase II was Commercial to Granville and Lougheed to Coquitlam.

VCC Station was an addition to (imho) encourage the line to be continued. VCC gives the line the feeling that it is incomplete as it's not a natural terminus.

When the current political party came into power, they axed phase II.

Therefore, the EG Line and the Central Broadway line were originally just the Millennium Line.

The Canada line couldn't be called the Olympic Line because of sensitivities at the time. The RAV line wasn't included in the Olympics cost and so it would have been fodder for Olympic opposition.

Prague uses letters.
Sao Paulo uses color names.
Rio De Janeiro uses numbers.
Mexico City uses letters and numbers....for station names they use pictures, I kid you not. :)
Guadalajara uses numbers...

[Dave2]

I recall seeing a presentation in 2009 showing how Translink was planning for future Skytrain upgrades and modelling new Skytrain routes including the extension westwards from VCC-Clark.

One idea was that the new Evergreen Line would become a separate Skytrain route from Douglas through Lougheed to VCC-Clark (and then onwards to UBC).

Expo would continue as its own separate route from Waterfront to King George.

Millennium would interline with Expo (as it does today), but only run between Waterfront and Lougheed Station. This would provide the necessary service to the stations between Columbia and Lougheed, but also provide extra (relatively empty) inbound trains starting at Columbia for the AM rush.

Translink was leaning towards this form of service because their models showed it needed the least number of new Skytrain cars (which were received in time for the Olympics) and they wouldn't need to expand the fleet again until 2026.

Since the current naming system using a "route" to name a "line" - I can see any route starting at Douglas College and heading westwards to be the "Evergreen Line".

I can also see the "Millennium Line" truncated at Lougheed Town Centre compared to its present route.

That means new signage for 10 stations. Maybe they can save $$$ by making yellow the colour of the Coquitlam-VCC Evergreen line... The Canada line isn't red, so why make the Evergreen green? (sarcasm, in case that's not obvious)... Three lines, two of them shades of blue.. :stunned:

[Meraki]

That means new signage for 10 stations. Maybe they can save $$$ by making yellow the colour of the Coquitlam-VCC Evergreen line... The Canada line isn't red, so why make the Evergreen green? (sarcasm, in case that's not obvious)... Three lines, two of them shades of blue.. :stunned:

Duh the obvious choice is to make the new line Cyan, so that we can have three shades of blue!

[trofirhen]

:rainbow: .... the subway (métro) has lines, all numbered. On the map there are four shades of green for lines 3, 6, 9, and 12; magenta, pink, pale violet and deep purple for lines 4, 7, 8 and 14 respectively; mustard yellow for line 10, bright yellow for the flagship line 1, orange for line 5, brown for line 11, dark blue and light blue for lines 2 and 13 respectively.

Very pretty, and not difficult to understand

[Zassk]

Compared to the $1.4 billion cost of the new line, buying signs for existing stations is a drop in the bucket. Anyway, every station will need some new signs due to the revised network and due to fare gates.

[Jebby]

Mexico City uses letters and numbers....for station names they use pictures, I kid you not. :)

Not quite. We use numbers (lines 1-12) and letters (lines A and B) for lines and names for stations. Stations aren't named by pictures, but every station does have its own unique "logo". Part of the reason for this was because when the first lines were built in the 60's there was a high degree of illiteracy and having a distinct logo as well as name for every station helped. For example Coyoacan means coyote in Nahuatl so the station logo is a coyote. The logo for the Benito Juarez (first president of Mexico) station is his silhouette. The tradition to have a logo for each station has continued to this day

[cornholio]

Not quite. We use numbers (lines 1-12) and letters (lines A and B) for lines and names for stations. Stations aren't named by pictures, but every station does have its own unique "logo". Part of the reason for this was because when the first lines were built in the 60's there was a high degree of illiteracy and having a distinct logo as well as name for every station helped. For example Coyoacan means coyote in Nahuatl so the station logo is a coyote. The logo for the Benito Juarez (first president of Mexico) station is his silhouette. The tradition to have a logo for each station has continued to this day

I know the station had names but they are hard to see. On the maps on the metro I could only make out the pictures as they seemed to be the primary form of identifying the stations. I know there are alot of cities in Mexico that still use pictures instead of street names too, a relic from the past(obviously they have street numbers to but they are in small font bellow the picture). I remember that when I was in Merida they used the pictures extensively all over to represent street names. I thought it was pretty cool but a bit of a pain when the street numbers were sometimes hard to see or find. :)

[st7860]

Something that's almost never printed in the newspapers when they talk about the Evergreen line being more 'necessary' than the broadway line is that the 97 bus that goes from lougheed station to coquitlam runs at the MOST, every 10 minutes, and usually every 15 minutes instead. there's not that much demand.

whereas the 99 bus is running every 2 minutes for most of the day.

[nname]

Something that's almost never printed in the newspapers when they talk about the Evergreen line being more 'necessary' than the broadway line is that the 97 bus that goes from lougheed station to coquitlam runs at the MOST, every 10 minutes, and usually every 15 minutes instead. there's not that much demand.

whereas the 99 bus is running every 2 minutes for most of the day.

It just that Evergreen Line is almost 10 years ahead of Broadway Line in term of design and support.

By the way, the combined frequency of the routes that Evergreen Line will directly replace is every 4.5min at peak, 6min mid-day, 6.5min evening, and 7.5min weekend. It will become every 5min in the evening and 6.5min weekend starting this June.

[mr.x]

There was a 3-car collision on Trimble and West 10th Avenue today, causing a massive backup of cars and buses on both directions of West 10th. Going westbound to UBC, there were 12 buses lined up behind the collision as no vehicle could go through - most of them were 99 B-Line buses.

LRT, I think not.

[Political_R]

There was a 3-car collision on Trimble and West 10th Avenue today, causing a massive backup of cars and buses on both directions of West 10th. Going westbound to UBC, there were 12 buses lined up behind the collision as no vehicle could go through - most of them were 99 B-Line buses.

LRT, I think not.

Given the current ridership to UBC on all the various bus routes, it would be crazy not to build subway to UBC. Ridership could easily be more than 100,000. LRT could not handle that at-grade. It would be better to integrate it with Skytrain anyways.

[cabotp]

There was a 3-car collision on Trimble and West 10th Avenue today, causing a massive backup of cars and buses on both directions of West 10th. Going westbound to UBC, there were 12 buses lined up behind the collision as no vehicle could go through - most of them were 99 B-Line buses.

LRT, I think not.

Actually in that case the LRT just needs to have a massive bumper on the front and then plow its way through the debris. :cool:

[aberdeen5698]

westbound to UBC, there were 12 buses lined up behind the collision as no vehicle could go through - most of them were 99 B-Line buses.So much for the supposed ability for buses to reroute around problems.

[mr.x]

So much for the supposed ability for buses to reroute around problems.

This was at the beginning of rush hour too, at 4 pm.

[SFUVancouver]

I saw a great public service announcement poster in Portland a couple of years back for their MAX lrt system. It read:

MAX weighs 70 tons. You don't.

[trofirhen]

As stated or implied in many of the above posts, it seems that a full RRT line (underground) to UBC is the best and most logical long-term option. Too bad more people aren't creating transit fantasies on that - especially the UBC part, under the escarpment.

[Alon]

A lot of the chatter I hear - comments on Human Transit, and some of the documents published officially (I forget where - I think on the city's website) suggest that the option that will be chosen is SkyTrain. Is this at all confirmed, and if not, when will the choice be made?

Another question: what's the line's funding status? I get conflicting information - sometimes I don't see explicit funding sources, sometimes I read that there's already some money from a provincial fund to reduce carbon emissions.

[mezzanine]

A lot of the chatter I hear - comments on Human Transit, and some of the documents published officially (I forget where - I think on the city's website) suggest that the option that will be chosen is SkyTrain. Is this at all confirmed, and if not, when will the choice be made?

Another question: what's the line's funding status? I get conflicting information - sometimes I don't see explicit funding sources, sometimes I read that there's already some money from a provincial fund to reduce carbon emissions.

^Alon Levy, is that you? if so, welcome to Vancouver. I always pay attention to your posts on HT and other sites.

funding status is easy - there's no funding currently for the broadway line.

we went thru charettes WRT different systems (surface vs grade separation, routing) and TL should be coming out with a preferred choice in the fall. after that ????. a provincial election is booked for the spring, so that might change in the midterm future.

http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Rapid-Transit-Projects/UBC-Line-Rapid-Transit-Study/Whats-Next.aspx

our current carbon tax goes directly to general revenue. that may change if we get a new government and it may be dedicated to transit initiatives. i'm not a big fan of that, but that's a whole other story...

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A4.htm

[Alon]

Yeah, that's me. Do you comment on HT, or do you lurk?

[osirisboy]

whats ht

[mezzanine]

^Human transit.

I follow but post rarely, almost always under vancouver topics.

[squeezied]

The case for rapid transit:
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/b-line-compared-to-metrotown.jpg
http://pricetags.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/b-line-compared-to-metrotown.jpg

The map says it all, rapid transit to the Broadway corridor should have come before the Millennium line. When the Evergreen line comes to service the Broadway corridor will even more crowded. Sure we all know the dilemma of serving existing demand or shaping growth; but this is clearly no dilemma when the Broadway is already the busiest bus corridor in North America. Meh...

[Alon]

Yeah, exactly. Not counting Expo, there will have been four expansions of the system: Millennium, Canada, Evergreen, UBC. Going by ridership on the buses that they're replacing, the order should have been UBC (i.e. Broadway west of Commercial), Canada, Millennium, Evergreen.

Even if the order is one of cost per rider, Canada is about to drop below Millennium or already has. Evergreen is a bit higher than both and UBC is a bit higher than Evergreen, but frankly I feel like the ridership projection is lowballed, and in addition if they'd built it first they could've probably gotten away with cut-and-cover and reduced the cost. Probably the Canada Line would've had to be bored then but that would be just 6.5 km vs. 12 for UBC.

[punface]

From Stephen Quinn in the Globe and Mail:

Former Vancouver city councillor Gordon Price said something this week that I found simultaneously startling and depressing: He doesn’t expect to see a rapid transit line along West Broadway to UBC in his lifetime.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/is-solving-west-broadways-transit-woes-really-a-lifetime-away/article4528760/

[SpongeG]

i don't either - not all the way to UBC perhaps to arbutus or at least cambie

[trofirhen]

From Stephen Quinn in the Globe and Mail:



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/is-solving-west-broadways-transit-woes-really-a-lifetime-away/article4528760/

i don't either - not all the way to UBC perhaps to arbutus or at least cambie
:previous::previous::previous:

They blew it again in transit planning ... Jimminy Crickets !! :hell::yuck:

[WarrenC12]

I don't think we'll see a UBC line until the province is rolling in some serious surplus budgets. With an impending NDP government and some unions they will surely backpay, that could be many years away.

[queetz@home]

UBC Line as Skytrain can be done much sooner regardless of what government sits in Victoria, but this will require the ultimate sacrifice....allowing the line to be elevated. Ultimately, the only reason why UBC Line seems the stuff of Science fiction is because people who live in the area insist that any rail transit line that go near their houses must be buried, hence ARTIFICIALLY INCREASING its cost to astronomical levels.

Canada Line at its current form was just forced down our throats by a certain quitter, and the results we are seeing today (short platforms, almost no hope of expansion, two car limit, etc) is the end result. Seems silly given how much it costs us, and how it totally derailed other transit plans. But if it was allowed to be elevated, we'd have more than enough money for both Evergreen and UBC (barring if this was allowed to be elevated) to be completed by now.

[aberdeen5698]

I don't think we'll see a UBC line until the province is rolling in some serious surplus budgets.If not a UBC line, we need to extend the Millenium line to AT LEAST Cambie to complete the Skytrain grid to the Canada Line and relieve the pressure on the Expo Line between Broadway and downtown. And if we're going that far we might as well go to Granville, and perhaps even Arbutus.

[crazyjoeda]

As a Surrey resident I think SkyTrain along Broadway is more beneficial than LRT is Surrey. Despite improvements to city planning and densification, Surrey still lacks the infrastructure and walkable neighbourhoods that make transit the most viable transportation option; by infrastructure I mean sidewalks and bike routes.

The maze of culdesacs found through the city impedes pedestrian access to arterial transit routes and the majority of retail centres are designed for car access separated from the street by large parking lots, so because of this I drive around Surrey, sadly for me transit is rarely a viable option. However, I usually take transit for travel into Vancouver because it is much more walkable and because traffic congestion and lack of parking make car travel undesirable.

Personally I think many South Fraser residence would be more benefit from rapid transit on Broadway. I would love to see LRT in Surrey but from a regional perspective I dispute that project having priority.

Surrey is getting better but in most areas the city continues to be built for cars.

[logan5]

Former Vancouver city councillor Gordon Price said something this week that I found simultaneously startling and depressing: He doesn’t expect to see a rapid transit line along West Broadway to UBC in his lifetime.

This city has been building rapid transit at an average rate of around 2.5 km per year (since 1985), so I would say we'll definitely see rapid transit to at least Arbutus well within his lifetime (knock on wood), maybe not all the way to UBC though. A complete redevelopment of the university golf course, and some surrounding land, into high density residential would be the clincher for me as far as extending all the way to UBC. I know there's a land lease issue, but I'm sure something could be arranged.


Canada Line at its current form was just forced down our throats by a certain quitter, and the results we are seeing today (short platforms, almost no hope of expansion, two car limit, etc) is the end result.

I can't find the Translink screenline survey that covered False Creek, but I believe the Canada Line's load limit of 15 000 people per hour (I have a feeling it could go higher) is enough to handle the peak demand for all modes combined, for at least a couple of decades.

The total capacity of the Expo Line and Canada Line combined would be 40 000 pph into and out of downtown Vancouver, travelling from the southern and eastern portions of Metro Vancouver. I believe that is enough capacity for at least a couple of decades.

nname probably has those screenline survey's on hand.

[dleung]

We need people to be vocal about this, especially ones from south of fraser like crazyjoeda, who are rational enough to realize that what's good for the region will benefit Surrey indirectly. Can someone write an editorial or something... make good opinions more public? God knows we've heard enough BS from the Rail-for-the-valley people...

The Broadway line should have been built before even the millenium line. It would really suck if they waited till after evergreen is completed before doing environmental assessments and stuff on Broadway... they better start right away. The fact that they're considering options other than full subway to UBC is already retarded (i'm hoping it's only a formal gesture to appease the "due process" geriatrics).

Some mention of the messed-up way transit lines are funded and prioritized should be in this letter. It should emphasize that within the grand scheme of subsidized sprawl and subsidized car ownership and subsidized fossil fuels, the suburbs will always owe the central city regardless of whether they get an underutilizied LRT line for their tax dollars.

People need to recognize the greater good, otherwise we'll end up like Toronto, which is getting the most opulent subway extention ever in it's most godforsaken hinterlands, while the other 90% of its ridership is crammed in crumbling 40-year old infrastructure that is no bigger than when it was first built.

[trofirhen]

If not a UBC line, we need to extend the Millenium line to AT LEAST Cambie to complete the Skytrain grid to the Canada Line and relieve the pressure on the Expo Line between Broadway and downtown. And if we're going that far we might as well go to Granville, and perhaps even Arbutus.
:previous:

Exactly. That's totally feasible; not asking too much. :tup:

[Alon]

Not only is all of this feasible, but going then from Arbutus to UBC is good for operating costs, because not only does this allow truly eliminating the 99-B, but also it makes travel demand more symmetric. If you just build to Arbutus, you're serving Fairview and the dense residential parts of Kits, and this means that the travel you're going to generate is work trips to Central Broadway and diagonal trips to Downtown. This means westbound trains start to empty out at Cambie. It's only 3 stops after that (and 2 of them are still Central Broadway), but probably you'll still be duplicating the 99-B because otherwise it would require two transfers to get to the Canada Line.

In contrast, if you build to UBC, you're going to start seeing true reverse-peak traffic: a lot of westbound traffic in the morning, and even diagonal trips from Downtown (and the West End, etc.) to UBC.

[usog]

Not only is all of this feasible, but going then from Arbutus to UBC is good for operating costs, because not only does this allow truly eliminating the 99-B, but also it makes travel demand more symmetric. If you just build to Arbutus, you're serving Fairview and the dense residential parts of Kits, and this means that the travel you're going to generate is work trips to Central Broadway and diagonal trips to Downtown. This means westbound trains start to empty out at Cambie. It's only 3 stops after that (and 2 of them are still Central Broadway), but probably you'll still be duplicating the 99-B because otherwise it would require two transfers to get to the Canada Line.

In contrast, if you build to UBC, you're going to start seeing true reverse-peak traffic: a lot of westbound traffic in the morning, and even diagonal trips from Downtown (and the West End, etc.) to UBC.

Yes and all these billions for the build-out to UBC will come from...? I mean, Translink is already having trouble keeping up with bus service levels, you really think they'll ever get funding for this anytime soon? If anything I can see skytrain to Cambie but that's it.

[WarrenC12]

Yes and all these billions for the build-out to UBC will come from...? I mean, Translink is already having trouble keeping up with bus service levels, you really think they'll ever get funding for this anytime soon? If anything I can see skytrain to Cambie but that's it.

Anybody know what the rev/passenger is for Expo Line, and from that the profit/passenger in operating expenses? As far as I know, Translink is still carrying hundreds of millions in debt from the initial Expo Line.

The billions in capital cost need to come from higher levels of government. I wonder how much the Feds would kick in if the province were to come up with 50% for example.

[jlousa]

I don't have the numbers at my disposal but assuming a P3 partnership similar to the Canada Line arrangment with contributions from the Province/Feds and UBC the line could be built with a positive outcome to Translink. The line should have enough ridership to carry to the P3 costs w/o futher outflow from Translink and they could pocket the savings from removing the 99b line if they decide not to redeploy it elsewhere. Of course we know it would need to redeploy to Surrey to make it sellable to the public.

[nname]

Anybody know what the rev/passenger is for Expo Line, and from that the profit/passenger in operating expenses? As far as I know, Translink is still carrying hundreds of millions in debt from the initial Expo Line.

The cost recovery for Expo+Millennium line is around 109% in 2008. That's the last figure I can find.

TransLink does not carry any debt from the Expo Line. It is still on BC Transit's book and never got transferred over back in 2001 (See page 73 here (http://www.bctransit.com/corporate/general_info/pdf/BC_Transit_201112_Annual_Report_Final_WEB.pdf))


I don't have the numbers at my disposal but assuming a P3 partnership similar to the Canada Line arrangment with contributions from the Province/Feds and UBC the line could be built with a positive outcome to Translink. The line should have enough ridership to carry to the P3 costs w/o futher outflow from Translink and they could pocket the savings from removing the 99b line if they decide not to redeploy it elsewhere. Of course we know it would need to redeploy to Surrey to make it sellable to the public.

The concessionaire credits is still count as a TransLink debt. From the 2011 annual report, it still carries a debt value of ~650 millions. Similarly, the GEB still carries a debt of 1 billion+.

[Gordon]

As far as I can remember the Canada line cost recovery number was 100,000 passengers \ day the last available numbers (2011) was 136,000 passengers\day

[queetz@home]

As a Surrey resident I think SkyTrain along Broadway is more beneficial than LRT is Surrey...

As a Vancouver...or more precisely, a Yaletown resident, I think rapid transit expansion to Surrey, whether it be LRT or Skytrain, would be far more beneficial.

The thing with Broadway is its never going to grow, and the only benefit of having rapid transit there, whether it be elevated, underground, or segregated ground level, is to make travel faster for those going from Commercial or VCC Clarke station to UBC (or Arbutus, wherever the line ends). 100,000 people crammed into buses is still not that big a deal, at least those people can still take *something* that is usable that can get them to their destination in a reasonably timely manner. Otherwise, those 100,000 people a day wouldn't be taking the buses at all, but instead be driving in their cars.

The ones in Surrey though, they virtually have little transit service, and yet Surrey is expected to grow far far more than the Broadway corridor, or even the city of Vancouver in general. As of right now, if you take a bus in Surrey, its such a cumbersome process that takes a ton of time, it is simply better to buy a cheap beater car and use that to get to places. Its madness to say the least, Kwatlen college even demonstrated that one can run faster than take a bus (of course, not everyone is fit to run the distances on a daily basis for work and school).

LRT is the choice simply because given Surrey's topography and road network, it can easily be expanded throughout the entire city at very little cost. Though I personally would prefer expansion of both SKytrain to Fleetwood and LRT to act as feeder routes funneling to the main Skytrain line.

As far as I can remember the Canada line cost recovery number was 100,000 passengers \ day the last available numbers (2011) was 136,000 passengers\day

So Translink is not subsidizing Canada Line at all? Not a single penny?

[wrenegade]

As a Vancouver...or more precisely, a Yaletown resident, I think rapid transit expansion to Surrey, whether it be LRT or Skytrain, would be far more beneficial.

The thing with Broadway is its never going to grow, and the only benefit of having rapid transit there, whether it be elevated, underground, or segregated ground level, is to make travel faster for those going from Commercial or VCC Clarke station to UBC (or Arbutus, wherever the line ends). 100,000 people crammed into buses is still not that big a deal, at least those people can still take *something* that is usable that can get them to their destination in a reasonably timely manner. Otherwise, those 100,000 people a day wouldn't be taking the buses at all, but instead be driving in their cars.

While I disagree that Broadway will never grow, you can't look past the fact that UBC is one of the fastest (if not the fastest) growing areas in Metro Vancouver. And I am talking about about residents, not just growth in university students.

Also, you point out that 100,000 people crammed into buses isn't a big deal. Well if that's the case, why don't we throw a whole bunch of buses at Surrey? (we totally should).

The Broadway corridor has reached essentially reached saturation point with the 99 B-Line. More buses won't fix the problem for speed or capacity, Skytrain will. The biggest problem South of the Fraser isn't speed or capacity, it's frequency and the number of routes period. NO area in Vancouver should get Skytrain before having a B-line, I don't care what type of growth is planned or forecasted in the area. We have to deal with the issues we have today (or have had for the past 10 years). Translink only has so much money and although the capital investment in Broadway/UBC Skytrain would be massive, the line itself would be revenue neutral (or even positive) for day one. There is no way Skytrain or LRT in Surrey could recover operational costs within the first couple years.

I know South of the Fraser is terribly served by transit and has been for a while now, but that doesn't mean that they get to jump the que or skip steps on the way to rapid-transit, they unfortunately have to go through the motions like everyone else.

[twoNeurons]

Surely, a line with the potential ridership of the Broadway line with no clear quick alternatives would be a great long-term investment by a private company.

A no-brainer route like this would be a stable source of income for a large corporation that is looking to diversify away from the volatility of the open markets.

In fact, long-term, I'd expect that route to be actually profitable.