[Jared]

more than that, 1) it would be relatively cheap and easy to build underground along that stretch; 2) the golf course is going to be built out within our lifetimes (damned gordo) so a skytrain at street level (or elevated) is probably not a great idea; c) it's two fairly sharp turns there from the golf course to allison, it might be that the best way is a less dramatic turn, necessitating a tunnel; 4) ubc isn't likely to want an elevated line, plus, an eventual nw marine drive terminus could be done underground.


1) It would be even cheaper to have it at grade. Why spend money you don't have to?

2) Not until 2080, at least. Besides which, all that means is you need to make provisions for a future station, it doesnt mean you have to be underground. If people move in and complain about noise from something thats been there for 60 years...well tough shit.

3) Neither of those curves are anywhere as close to being as tight as existing ones such as the one at Broadway Station, or the one at Main St Station.

4) I'm not really sure what the point in extending the line to NW Marine Drive is, its really not that far from EM+UBlvd. Its a university campus, people are used to walking; I doubt you'd get a significant amount of extra riders from creating the Vanier Express. The one advantage I do see for underground is the ability to extend it somewhere in the future, but I'm not really sure where you would go; EM+UBlvd is really the logical terminus.

[mr.x]

In other (more positive) news, it looks like the UPass renewal passed:

YES: 17,945
NO: 500

It's interesting how the NO side came to a perfect 500 number.


Shame on them!

[flight_from_kamakura]

1) It would be even cheaper to have it at grade. Why spend money you don't have to?

a lot of reasons, chief among them directing future development and avoiding a noisy, ugly grade-separated source of exasperation.


2) Not until 2080, at least. Besides which, all that means is you need to make provisions for a future station, it doesnt mean you have to be underground. If people move in and complain about noise from something thats been there for 60 years...well tough shit.

sure, but an underground (or even elevated) line would leave planners of that era with more options for development. also, and mostly basically, a grade-level line would make it impossible to cross university boulevard in a vehicle! it would make university into a highway!


3) Neither of those curves are anywhere as close to being as tight as existing ones such as the one at Broadway Station, or the one at Main St Station.

this much is true, but it may be that, all other things considered, avoiding the slowing of tight turns is an added consideration.


4) I'm not really sure what the point in extending the line to NW Marine Drive is, its really not that far from EM+UBlvd. Its a university campus, people are used to walking; I doubt you'd get a significant amount of extra riders from creating the Vanier Express. The one advantage I do see for underground is the ability to extend it somewhere in the future, but I'm not really sure where you would go; EM+UBlvd is really the logical terminus.

it's true enough that skytrain would be a wastefully expensive way to connect ubc's stadium area with the rest of vancouver, but it would also be a very good way of doing so. also, it's not true that there's only one advantage of an underground terminus. an elevated station at ubc (though cool looking) would force the university to surrender an awful lot of space, and i suspect that this alone (putting aside all the attendant issues) is enough to quash that idea.


overall, my thinking is that running it at grade over from blanca would present two issues:

1) it would be cumbersome, and it would take a lot to manage the traffic issues of a dedicated line running at grade.

2) it would be incredibly ugly with the fencing and all that, and it's unfathomable to me that the powers that be would go that route, whatever the cost savings.

[quobobo]

Incredibly ugly? I'm sure they could come up with something better than chain link fencing for much less than the cost of a tunnel.

Not being able to cross University is a valid point, but there's really only a few places to cross anyway and there's not huge amounts of auto traffic that needs to cross it.

I agree that space is valuable in the centre of campus, but for way less than the price of a tunnel there's a lot of other things that could be done to reclaim that space and buy some fencing that isn't "incredibly ugly".

[officedweller]

Bus loop's life is 12 years?

Anyways, I could see the line above ground west of Blanca. I'd rather see it off to the side rather than in he median though - it could skirt behind some of the buildings and enter campus south of University Blvd.

[alta-bc]

UBC being a very large campus, it could actually have two stations. One where the current bus loop is and another about 500-600 meters in.
Granville and Burrard stations are only about 400 meters apart, so it is possible.

[mr.x]

^ I prefer building one larger station (perhaps with a 120-metre platform?) with multiple entrances rather than two stations.

[officedweller]

I could see the line looping past the central campus / bus loop area (dipping underground for a bit) and eventually terminating above grade in the south campus condo area.

[Nutterbug]

The university, residents, and student activists probably wouldn't allow it elevated through the boulevard.

Don't the Natives own the land around the golf course? I bet they'll have something to say about it too.

[mr.x]

Don't the Natives own the land around the golf course? I bet they'll have something to say about it too.

As long as it doesn't mean we have to stick another logo on the trains...

[Nutterbug]

As long as it doesn't mean we have to stick another logo on the trains...

Or call it the Musqueam Line.

[cornholio]

Having only one station at UBC would create problems. It would mean that you would need to unload and load everyone at one point, you would end up with congestion and increased train dwell times in the station(this actually decreases the capacity and frequency of the entire millennium line). If you have two stations you help solve this problem.

[deasine]

Having only one station at UBC would create problems. It would mean that you would need to unload and load everyone at one point, you would end up with congestion and increased train dwell times in the station(this actually decreases the capacity and frequency of the entire millennium line). If you have two stations you help solve this problem.

You can always have what is happening at Waterfront right now: where the train enters the station, unloads people, goes through, switches track, then enters the station and picks up people, then leave in the opposite direction.

[cornholio]

You can always have what is happening at Waterfront right now: where the train enters the station, unloads people, goes through, switches track, then enters the station and picks up people, then leave in the opposite direction.

Yes you would have that and I am probably exaggerating the problem a bit but thats alot of riders that the station would have to handle. I still think it would be wise to have two stations serve UBC instead of one, but thats just my opinion.

[Nutterbug]

If there are to be two, there should be one to serve the Village and hospital at Wesbrook, and the end station and the bus loop should be moved to Main Mall, instead of next to the SUB, to give it a little distance from the Wesbrook station.

Most people getting off from the train or bus go directly to their classes instead of going to SUB anyways, don't they? And a Main Mall stop would be a more convenient central location to most students, I would imagine.

[mr.x]

Having only one station at UBC would create problems. It would mean that you would need to unload and load everyone at one point, you would end up with congestion and increased train dwell times in the station(this actually decreases the capacity and frequency of the entire millennium line). If you have two stations you help solve this problem.

I'm quite sure a dwell time of 30-60 secs is enough, to unload and load passengers - even at rush hour. It works quite well at Waterfront.

I highly doubt a second station would make that much of a difference. Not to mention that underground stations don't come cheap.


Simply build a 100-120 metre length platform station, with a very large concourse (maybe even as big as the station itself) and have multiple entrances leading to the concourse. If there's space, they could put in a 7-11, Starbucks, or even a Tim Hortons in the concourse.



A huge staircase (12-metres wide) plus 3 escalators would lead to the bus platform. From there, a smaller staircase (8-metres wide) plus 2-escalators would lead to train concourse. There will be a lot of space in the concourse for people to move around (6,000 square feet). There will be multiple entrances leading into concourse, not just the previously stated main entrance.

Down one level to the train platform, you have to go through the fare gates that are in the centre of the concourse and down one more level through several staircases and escalators. The platform itself would be long and wide: 100-120 metres long and 20-metres wide.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2105/2221482373_325dc7118d_b.jpg

[eduardo88]

Having only one station at UBC would create problems. It would mean that you would need to unload and load everyone at one point, you would end up with congestion and increased train dwell times in the station(this actually decreases the capacity and frequency of the entire millennium line). If you have two stations you help solve this problem.

or you could have two platforms for one track. unload through one set of doors, load through the others...they do that in munich and it seems to work just fine.

[cornholio]

^^I know, but the thing is that a dwell time of 60 seconds at one station is fine when the trains dont run at a max frequency because they have a buffer zone where they can get closer to the train ahead waiting at the station, once that train leaves the station the normal distance between the two trains is re-estabelished because the second train then waits for 60 seconds. But if you have the line at maximum frequency then you would have to have every train waiting at every station for 60 seconds, if your traveling past 15 stations then that adds 7.5 min on to your trip even if you dont go through a station that actually needs a double dwell time. The other option is to reduce max frequency by 30 seconds, or whatever the difference between the longest dwell time and the shortest dwell time is. So in other words if the Millenium line has a maximum frequency of 60 seconds and a normal station dwell time of 30 seconds then if one station has a dwell time of 60 seconds then it reduces the maximum frequency of the entire line to 90 seconds. Its actually a bid difference, in that scenario you reduce the max capacity of the entire line by something like 33%, possibly just because of one station.

Now sure this probably wouldent be a problem on the Millenium line for a while since im sure it would be a while before you woul;d reach capacity using the longest possible trains and need to max out frequency. But anyways this is my point.

[mr.x]

^ well, I'm pretty sure a dwell time of 30 secs at the UBC terminus is sufficient....being that, for the most part, these are active able-bodied students that will get in and out of the trains quickly.

It wouldn't be a problem considering the next train arrives in 60-90 secs, as long as the platforms are wide and long and allow people to move around.

[twoNeurons]

Considering UBC is definitely the Terminus (nowwhere to go after that) it could also either be single tracked into UBC... or a single track loop up W. Mall, North Marine and Wesbrook to minimize visual impact.

http://maps.google.com/staticmap?center=49.266320353130695,-123.24724674224854&markers=49.266320353130695,-123.24724674224854,red&zoom=14&size=500x400&key=ABQIAAAAsB3I2KNUb3ZfzK2aNnrIvBSEBQxfZ2-jyBT0IQAkexlaODn7qhTW9jAfycx7nqvI8840tk6wrdsF4w

[officedweller]

Here's what I had in mind - you avoid the built up areas of University Boulevard (and cuts throuh Acadia Park student housing) - it could loop further to the south as well. I think it would cut through an area given to the Musqueum near the church.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9513/76419035pt5.png

[lightrail]

Here's what I had in mind - you avoid the built up areas of University Boulevard (and cuts throuh Acadia Park student housing) - it could loop further to the south as well. I think it would cut through an area given to the Musqueum near the church.


Not sure I understand the point of avoiding built-up areas. I thought rapid transit was to serve built-up areas?

Longer line, equals higher operating costs - best to spend more money on higher construction costs, running through built-up areas and taking the shortest route from A to B.

[twoNeurons]

marginally longer.

In addition, I think od was focusing on hitting the student housing. GO where the people are.

The BUILT-UP areas in UBC are primarily pedestrian walkways... so an elevated train may be better a short walk away.

Saying all this, I really don't know UBC well enough to suggest the best route.


No. One, it would take up road space on Broadway. We already have huge traffic delays on Broadway street - removing lanes wouldn't be a good idea. Two, it would be such an eyesore. Because Broadway is very limited in space, many of the stations would have to be overhead, which would look like the M-Line at Burnaby. That of course, like you said, would devastate pedestrian life. Three, I believe parts of it must be underground as it is impossible for the SkyTrain to climb the steep grades which is present in a lot of the line. Four, we need to fully utilize the Canada Line knockout panel XD.

The M-Line goes down LOUGHEED Highway in Burnaby.... so it isn't a major walking road. Being elevated through there isn't a major concern. Broadway of course is a no-go as overhead.

But as for steep grades... if LIM technology and Skytrain is used, grade isn't a problem. There is a technical limitation of "vertical" when it comes to LIM as the propulsion system doesn't depend on friction to move. Of course, there are other concerns when it comes to grade, such as the ability to stop in case of emergency... as well as practical energy consumption etc... but yeah... anyway, technically grade is less of an issue.

[officedweller]

Sorry, I was referring to the areas where an elevated ROW would not fit into the area - i.e. if it becomes elevated from Blanca westwards - it could run elevated at the south side of University Bloulevard and then through Acadia Park and then dive down underground under East Mall through the heart of campus. If it came in along University Boulevard it would have to be in the median to go elevated through the University Village area (no space on the sides) [or go underground] and there would probably be a lot of opposition (to an elevated guideway) - especially since that is the ceremonial "entrance" to campus. Having the line divert to the south also allows a second station in the south campus area - near the student housing as well as the South Campus neighbourhood (a bit of a walk @ 16th Ave.).

[Jared]

I could see the line looping past the central campus / bus loop area (dipping underground for a bit) and eventually terminating above grade in the south campus condo area.

I've thought about that too; having a station at Wesbrook Mall and 16th Ave or thereabouts. UBC Planning is hellbent on portraying all the residential development as sustainable (of which one facet is non-car transportation). Of course, I don't that would stop residents from kicking up a fuss. :haha:

Still, might be worth looking into.

[Jared]

a lot of reasons, chief among them directing future development and avoiding a noisy, ugly grade-separated source of exasperation.


I doubt it would be any more noisy than current traffic, and I certainly dont see how a minivan or SUV driving along UBlvd is any less "ugly" than a train. I'm not really sure what exasperation you think it would cause, save for upsetting a couple old golfers. As for fences, you can grow Ivy on them or something to cover them up a bit.


sure, but an underground (or even elevated) line would leave planners of that era with more options for development. also, and mostly basically, a grade-level line would make it impossible to cross university boulevard in a vehicle! it would make university into a highway!


it wouldnt really be a highway, since its still only one lane. Furthermore, the only turnoff right now in the Pacific Spirit Park is the golf course; closing one turn (which only a very small percent of vehicles use) is hardly making something into a highway. I'm also not sure what development options you're removing, other than planting a few flower beds under the tracks/on top of the tunnel. in fact, it would be easier to construct an at-grade station down the line than either a elevated or (especially) underground station.


this much is true, but it may be that, all other things considered, avoiding the slowing of tight turns is an added consideration.


they are pretty wide turning radii, i doubt you'd lose more than a couple seconds...


it's true enough that skytrain would be a wastefully expensive way to connect ubc's stadium area with the rest of vancouver, but it would also be a very good way of doing so. also, it's not true that there's only one advantage of an underground terminus. an elevated station at ubc (though cool looking) would force the university to surrender an awful lot of space, and i suspect that this alone (putting aside all the attendant issues) is enough to quash that idea.

ultimately it depends on how well the plan it over the long term; especially with regard to the whole University Boulevard Redevelopment. Right now there's plently of space, it just depends on how much forsight they use.


overall, my thinking is that running it at grade over from blanca would present two issues:

1) it would be cumbersome, and it would take a lot to manage the traffic issues of a dedicated line running at grade.

2) it would be incredibly ugly with the fencing and all that, and it's unfathomable to me that the powers that be would go that route, whatever the cost savings.

1) I don't think redirecting traffic from the golf course is too big of a deal. They could always throw in a couple underpasses if need be, or simply send the track into a trench briefly.

2) should and will are two different things. it wouldnt surprise me if they end up burying it, but that doesnt mean it makes sense. ultimately, they're simply spending lots of extra money to cave into a bunch of nimbys. If at grade sections (when appropriate) are acceptable for the rest of the Lower Mainland, why should the westside be any different?

------------------------------

Ultimately, i think the best arguement for an underground station is the ability to have a double tracked platform, with tail track (instead of a single track leading in and then reversing out), in order to deal with potential capacity issues down the line (i.e. minimizing dwell times). I have no doubt the university would flat out refuse having a tail track continuing down UBlvd to say, West Mall. Also, you have a greater ability to loop round and have a station at south campus, like officedweller suggested.

I dont think both a Village and Loop station are needed, they're really not that far. Properly designed tail track should take care of frequency issues.

[G-Slice]

Here's what I had in mind - you avoid the built up areas of University Boulevard (and cuts throuh Acadia Park student housing) - it could loop further to the south as well. I think it would cut through an area given to the Musqueum near the church.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9513/76419035pt5.png

I think the students would be more used to walking around campus, right? It's not like the busses get them any closer than the loop. And isn't most of the new high-density development happening to the south?

And not to be too PC but isn't it more like "an area not taken from the Musqueum near the church?"

EDIT: Oops, looks like I misread the map... actually, your suggestion is awesome! Where would you have the stations?

[SFUVancouver]

I could see the SkyTrain to UBC run down the University Blvd median in a granite-clad, partially elevated alignment; something similar to the concrete-contained berm in the Granview Cut.

The tunnel portal would be 50 to 100 metres behind the gates to UBC at Blanca and the use of granite would tie in the new rail infrastructure to the existing ive-covered granite gates. By having the guideway elevated by four or five metres the alignment could be able to avoid, or certainly limit the need for the ugly chain-link fencing that would be required for an at-grade right of way or a trench. At intersections the SkyTrain would rise further and cross with a steel or pre-cast concrete bridge, ideally clad in granite. The electric trolley infrastructure and streetlights could even be integrated into the structure. The more I think about it the more I feel it could be a pretty great addition to the UEL and UBC, provided they use high quality materials.

[SpongeG]

i wonder if students would protest this like they have the grassy mound

lol

i can't believe they would get arrested over that

so grandpa what did you get arrested for in college - oh i didn't want them to get rid of a hill of grass

[officedweller]

That's equivalent to placing it on a viaduct (in the ancient English sense). That would mess up the sightlines along the roadway even more than columns for a regular elevated guideway.
Having the guideway at the side of the roadway would work best - esp. if there is an intermediate (future) station, say, on the Musqueum lands.

The "ancient" Millwall Viaduct at the Docklands Light Railway - London:

http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/DLRgenPhots/
http://www.squarewheels.org.uk/rly/DLRgenPhots/MillwallViaduct.jpg

[worldwide]

i wonder if students would protest this like they have the grassy mound

lol

i can't believe they would get arrested over that

so grandpa what did you get arrested for in college - oh i didn't want them to get rid of a hill of grass

did you see the little article in 24 hours today. they didnt say it was a bus loop, just a development, and the guy they were talking to was quoted saying something like: theres so much development on campus and none of it benefits the students.

what construction is there on campus?

new university buildings.
the bus loop
private residences that are funding the university via the endowment

I don't see how the students aren't benefiting.

[mr.x]

By MATT KIELTYKA, 24 HOURS

UBC students are demanding answers after 19 of their colleagues were arrested Friday night in what police called a "volatile" protest.

But if you ask Steven Klein, a student who witnessed the police crackdown at UBC's "grassy knoll," the only thing volatile about the incident was police reaction.

"There was no threat of violence or aggression," Klein claims. "Students feel the arrests were unjustified and want to know why police dealt with it the way they did."

According to the RCMP, some of the students attending the KnollAid 2.0 event - an all-day concert to help save a small green space behind the school's student union building from development - lit a large bonfire and blocked firefighters from putting it out.

One student was arrested and a group of students locked arms around a police car to prevent the student from being taken away.

At that point, scores of police arrived at the site to deal with the crowd, resulting in the arrest of 19 students.

But Klein and fellow student Morghain Gibbons told 24 hours that while the students did protest the arrests, they were far from "volatile" or "dangerous."

"It's just absurd," Gibbons said. "There were like 20 cop cars called in when it looked like everything was under control."

The Students for a Democratic Society UBC group is planning on filing a complaint against the RCMP.

SDSUBC organizer Margaret Orlowski said students will continue to protest the development plans and their petition to save the grassy knoll already has over 3,000 signatures.

"It's an important part of student life," she said. "There is so much development on campus right now and none of it is for the students' benefit."





These people are simply idiots....I'm amazed they actually made it into UBC.

If none of this development benefits students, I sure hope they never set foot in Irving.

[The_Henry_Man]

By MATT KIELTYKA, 24 HOURS

UBC students are demanding answers after 19 of their colleagues were arrested Friday night in what police called a "volatile" protest.

But if you ask Steven Klein, a student who witnessed the police crackdown at UBC's "grassy knoll," the only thing volatile about the incident was police reaction.

"There was no threat of violence or aggression," Klein claims. "Students feel the arrests were unjustified and want to know why police dealt with it the way they did."

According to the RCMP, some of the students attending the KnollAid 2.0 event - an all-day concert to help save a small green space behind the school's student union building from development - lit a large bonfire and blocked firefighters from putting it out.

One student was arrested and a group of students locked arms around a police car to prevent the student from being taken away.

At that point, scores of police arrived at the site to deal with the crowd, resulting in the arrest of 19 students.

But Klein and fellow student Morghain Gibbons told 24 hours that while the students did protest the arrests, they were far from "volatile" or "dangerous."

"It's just absurd," Gibbons said. "There were like 20 cop cars called in when it looked like everything was under control."

The Students for a Democratic Society UBC group is planning on filing a complaint against the RCMP.

SDSUBC organizer Margaret Orlowski said students will continue to protest the development plans and their petition to save the grassy knoll already has over 3,000 signatures.

"It's an important part of student life," she said. "There is so much development on campus right now and none of it is for the students' benefit."





These people are simply idiots....I'm amazed they actually made it into UBC.

If none of this development benefits students, I sure hope they never set foot in Irving.

^Example of NIMBYISM to the extreme.

[zivan56]

Funny how a huge swath of natural forest was clearcut at SFU the past summer (or past past) to make way for condos, and yet nobody even said a single thing about it.

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Okay back to the subject. Although I disagree with the protesters, but with the horrors happening a few blocks east on Cambie St, it's no wonder that people are scared when the word "underground" is mentioned (let alone a bus stop).

[worldwide]

Funny how a huge swath of natural forest was clearcut at SFU the past summer (or past past) to make way for condos, and yet nobody even said a single thing about it.


yeah i know... i dont see how putting a bunch of people in a greenfield development thats not close to anything is sustainable, and i live in this place... my building manager drives a land rover for christs sake. this place is a sham

[dreambrother808]

i watched a video on youtube yesterday of the bus loop and development around it that will replace the grassy knoll. it was quite beautiful, a major improvement to campus. i wonder who benefits from that? who will enjoy that? ummmm..... students perhaps?

[twoNeurons]

Once cambie is done, people will forget the pain the construction had. Hopefully the end result and improvement will make it easier for cut n' cover in the future.

I don't think there's a chance of what happened on jasper ave in Edmonton where the LRT tunnel cut n' cover essentially killed the street.

[djh]

Once cambie is done, people will forget the pain the construction had. Hopefully the end result and improvement will make it easier for cut n' cover in the future.


Maybe, but for a lot of people in the neighbourhood, the place is completely changed. For example, Tomato cafe was a staple of this (Cambie) neighbourhood - where else to go for brunch on the weekend? Since it moved because of construction, there has not become a new de facto brunch spot in the area. And I just heard that Kestrel Books - another long long long term tenant in the neighbourhood - is also going under. So now, no brunch, no bookshop. Just a lot of subpar or empty shop fronts where there were well-established neighbourhood anchors. Same could happen elsewhere.

After having said all of that, I'm still definitely for the extension to UBC :) Please put it cut & cover under 10th, with stations on Broadway, as all the sensible engineering reports have suggested:D

[lightrail]

I don't think there's a chance of what happened on jasper ave in Edmonton where the LRT tunnel cut n' cover essentially killed the street.

Having lived in Edmonton for 15 years, I have to disagree. The LRT tunnlling did not kill Jasper Avenue, other factors did:
1. new building construction with no street front stores, just blank glass
2. the ugly streetscaping done after the tunnels where built - dividing Jasper in two
3. permissive suburban zoning allowing a mas migration of jobs and retail to the suburbs where parking is plentiful, rents are cheap and nobody walks or takes a bus

Finally - the tunnels under Jasper were bored tunnels, not cut and cover - only the stations where cut and cover. Unlike in Vancouver, the station roof was built first and then excavation took place underneath and the spoil removed by train, restoring the roadway much sooner.

[npinguy]

i wonder if students would protest this like they have the grassy mound

lol

i can't believe they would get arrested over that

so grandpa what did you get arrested for in college - oh i didn't want them to get rid of a hill of grass

didn't go to UBC, did ya.


The grassy knoll is near and dear.

[mr.x]

Already posted, but I wanted a poll for this.



Nominated for one of the most retarded stories of the year:




SkyTrain to UBC worth 6,000 Priuses a year

By Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader

Published: December 16, 2008 10:00 AM
Updated: December 16, 2008 10:22 AM



Every new student entering UBC – all 6,000 of them – could be given a brand new $25,000 Toyota Prius. And that could happen every year, forever.

That's professor Patrick Condon's calculation of what could be done instead of spending an estimated $2.8 billion building a new SkyTrain line to UBC.

"I don't think people have any concept yet of how much money $2.8 billion to go 12 kilometres is," said Condon, a senior researcher at UBC's Design Centre for Sustainability.

Condon calculates $2.8 billion earning a six per cent return would generate $168 million a year, more than enough to buy 6,000 Priuses.

He said his "ludicrous" example is intended to highlight the cost of what's expected to be a deeply tunneled SkyTrain line, the most expensive possible configuration.

"It's a phenomenal amount of money," he said. "It's twice the cost of the Canada Line per kilometre and three to four times the cost of the Millennium Line."

He's an advocate of using much cheaper trams or light rail lines to make big transit investments go much farther.

Condon says SkyTrain "backbones" traversing the region – like the original Expo Line and the proposed Evergreen Line to Coquitlam make sense.

"It loses logic when you start to extend the system out to UBC, which is at the very edge of the region," he said.

"For the same kind of money as you're contemplating expending to get out to Guildford, you could certainly cover Guildford, plus south Newton, the existing city hall area, Panorama Ridge and potentially beyond by connecting with the Interurban line to get you out to Cloverdale," he said.

Condon is the author of a new study that examines competing transportation options in terms of dollar cost, energy consumption and emissions.

It concludes trams are the best investment based on reducing greenhouse gases and overall lifecycle costs, assuming most trips taken in the region are relatively short.

The case for SkyTrain is stronger if it's assumed many people want to travel considerable distances traversing the region each day.

SkyTrain does have the lowest operating costs of any option Condon surveyed, but its high capital costs undo those gains.

So expensive is SkyTrain, he says, the total cost per ride adds up to more than using a Ford Explorer SUV, while trams are the cheapest, just ahead of light rail.

Rail-based technologies will increasingly do better than buses or other vehicles as fuel costs rise in the future, the study projects.

The province last week announced studies to decide what technology should be used to build new rapid transit extensions in Surrey and the Broadway corridor in Vancouver.

Transportation minister Kevin Falcon has said the choice for new lines also has to take into account how many people a system can move and how fast, adding new transit lines must be competitive with the option of taking a car.

[mr.x]

Can a mod please merge this topic (including my poll) with my most recent topic? thx.

[Distill3d]

Every new student entering UBC – all 6,000 of them – could be given a brand new $25,000 Toyota Prius. And that could happen every year, forever.

i love this! a good part of the reason for building SkyTrains is to reduce people's dependency on automobiles. though, a Prius may be the way to go if you're purchasing a vehicle, but you can't force people to carpool...or can you?

[WarrenC12]

i love this! a good part of the reason for building SkyTrains is to reduce people's dependency on automobiles. though, a Prius may be the way to go if you're purchasing a vehicle, but you can't force people to carpool...or can you?

They do in Cuba. :D

[raggedy13]

Threads merged!

I know this guy is just using the Prius example to make a point but it's still stupid. This article was posted in another thread and some of the good points already made in that one plus others would be...

1) Adding tens of thousands of Priuses to the road would result in a lot more traffic congestion in the area

2) Where do people park all these Priuses on campus?

3) The lifespan of SkyTrain cars is much longer than that of a car

4) Priuses may be more efficient but they still run on gasoline and pollute

5) Think of the unnecessary waste of resources/materials required to produce an endless supply of cars versus a relatively limited number of SkyTrain cars

6) There are more than just students commuting to UBC - UBC is the second largest employer in the region

7) There are other destinations than just UBC along the Broadway corridor

8) This guy points out that SkyTrain is a good backbone for the system but uses geography to dismiss UBC as a fringe area even though current ridership along the corridor more than justifies Broadway as a natural extension of that backbone.

Anyways, I'm sure there are plenty of others.

[lightning]

i thought i pointed this out in the other thread but I think there's some misunderstanding about the Prius article. He's not advocating at all that we should be purchasing Priuses and giving them to students. What he's trying to do is to put the COST of an underground SkyTrain line into perspective. He's saying that it will cost 2.8 billion dollars to build the line which is "twice the cost of the Canada Line per kilometre and three to four times the cost of the Millennium Line."

So essentially he says that we have a choice with how we want to spend our taxpayers money:
A) build one line to UBC and thats it or
B) build multiple rapid transit lines throughout the Metro Vancouver region

[Doug]

Why is the cost per km so much higher than the already sky high Canada Line? The Canada Line crosses under False Creek and was built in the middle of a construction boom so if anything the UBC line s/b cheaper.

I also agreee with the notion of two stations at UBC as the campus is huge.

[jlousa]

They need to decide on what gets built and where before an estimate can be given.
If they go with cut and cover along 10th ave, and grade/slight elevation once they hit UEL then the costs will not be too bad.

[nname]

My original though was the skytrain + rapid bus option, but after reading through the RTM phase B document, that option just doesn't make sense as the passenger load to UBC is more than 65% of the max load on the 99 B-Line. I think the load on the existing skytrain line fell off much faster than that as moving away from downtown.

Load after leaving the station:
Eastbound
UBC 66%
Westbrook 82% <- load leaving UBC
Sasmat 80%
Alma 83%
Macdonald 83%
Granville 90%
Willow 95%
Cambie 100% (11,000 pass/day)
Main 91%
Clarke 87%

Westbound
Commerical 97%
Clarke 98%
Main 100% (12,000 pass/day)
Cambie 93%
Willow 85%
Granville 69%
Macdonald 67%
Alma 66%
Sasmat 65% <- load coming to UBC
Westbrook 43%

[twoNeurons]

My original though was the skytrain + rapid bus option, but after reading through the RTM phase B document, that option just doesn't make sense as the passenger load to UBC is more than 65% of the max load on the 99 B-Line. I think the load on the existing skytrain line fell off much faster than that as moving away from downtown.

Load after leaving the station:
Eastbound
UBC 66%
Westbrook 82% <- load leaving UBC
Sasmat 80%
Alma 83%
Macdonald 83%
Granville 90%
Willow 95%
Cambie 100% (11,000 pass/day)
Main 91%
Clarke 87%

Westbound
Commerical 97%
Clarke 98%
Main 100% (12,000 pass/day)
Cambie 93%
Willow 85%
Granville 69%
Macdonald 67%
Alma 66%
Sasmat 65% <- load coming to UBC
Westbrook 43%


Interesting... the line really drops off after Willow/Granville.

Meaning a large % of people are either transferring North or South from there or that is their final destination.

IT would appear that the previous plan to do extend the line at LEAST to Granville was prudent.

[DKaz]

The loads aren't really surprising. True the 99 serves a lot of UBC students but a lot of people are also using it to go to work at the many offices between Cambie and Arbutus -- I used to work at the Wawanesa building. Going home was a whole different story, getting on a bus was difficult as they were often packed and they seemed to run less frequently. I hope the new bus lanes improved that situation.

[crazyjoeda]

I think realistically the cost of the line past Alma street will be higher than the rest of the extension. I realize a lot of people take transit to UBC but the cost effectiveness of rapid bus from either Alma of Arbutus will make Rapid Bus very efficient. I think it is very important for the M-line to be extended past Cambie and eventually I would love to see it go all the way to UBC.

The distance to UBC from Arbutus is about 7km.
The distance to UBC from Alma is about 4.5km.

[LeftCoaster]

How would the cost of the line past alma be more than the cost of tunneling under 10th/broadway?

[mr.x]

I think realistically the cost of the line past Alma street will be higher than the rest of the extension. I realize a lot of people take transit to UBC but the cost effectiveness of rapid bus from either Alma of Arbutus will make Rapid Bus very efficient. I think it is very important for the M-line to be extended past Cambie and eventually I would love to see it go all the way to UBC.

The distance to UBC from Arbutus is about 7km.
The distance to UBC from Alma is about 4.5km.

I highly doubt that considering the stations are by far the most expensive part of the entire construction process. 80-metre station platforms would cost at least $100-million a piece (or more) and there are seven underground stations and one elevated station from Finning to Alma.

Yet, there are only 2 stations west of Alma: Sasamat and UBC.

[deasine]

Geez this poll is useless AHAHAHAHAHAHA I mean if they were to build to Alma might as well... >___> it's not that much more... X____X"

You still have a 66% load from UBC... wow...

[mr.x]

My original though was the skytrain + rapid bus option, but after reading through the RTM phase B document, that option just doesn't make sense as the passenger load to UBC is more than 65% of the max load on the 99 B-Line. I think the load on the existing skytrain line fell off much faster than that as moving away from downtown.

Load after leaving the station:
Eastbound
UBC 66%
Westbrook 82% <- load leaving UBC
Sasmat 80%
Alma 83%
Macdonald 83%
Granville 90%
Willow 95%
Cambie 100% (11,000 pass/day)
Main 91%
Clarke 87%

Westbound
Commerical 97%
Clarke 98%
Main 100% (12,000 pass/day)
Cambie 93%
Willow 85%
Granville 69%
Macdonald 67%
Alma 66%
Sasmat 65% <- load coming to UBC
Westbrook 43%


wow.....thanks for posting, this and the poll we have here made by educated and well-knowledged people regarding this project is evident enough that it should indeed be SkyTrain all the way to UBC.

Do you have a link for the report for these stats?

[jlousa]

$100Million for a station?? I'll build you as many 80m stations as you'd like for half of that price , and each of them would be better then anything we have now. :tup:
I'll even thrown in public washrooms and a couple of retail outlets.

[LeftCoaster]

You must be quite the handyman! :D

[mr.x]

$100Million for a station?? I'll build you as many 80m stations as you'd like for half of that price , and each of them would be better then anything we have now. :tup:
I'll even thrown in public washrooms and a couple of retail outlets.

Iunno, just a figure i pulled since I read somewhere the downtown Canada Line stations cost around $50-million each.

[mr.x]

You must be quite the handyman! :D

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/b/e/NoahDoveReturns.jpg

[jlousa]

Well I have some tools and I get HGTV so I'm pretty confident. If I'm missing any tools I can always buy them at Canadian Tire and return them when I'm finished with them. I even have a name for my company. I'll call it On Time and On Budget, I'd be sure to win every bid. :tup:

[Metro-One]

:previous: Not if my company bids: "Open Early, Under budget" hehe

[mr.x]

XTransitExpress Consortium: "For Free, and Finished in 7-days"

[DKaz]

I wonder what's up with the concept of these mega projects. Why couldn't we do... Phase 1 VCC-Clark to Cambie (2015), Phase 2 Cambie to Arbutus (2018), Phase 3 Arbutus to UBC (2020). Manageable, feasible, meaningful phases. Phase 1 will provide a intermediate crosstown connection between two major rapid transit lines and will serve as an interim hub for the 99 B-Line, Phase 2 will connect the rest of the second biggest employment centre and to the Arbutus LRT/streetcar, and Phase 3 will complete the line to a major education, employment, and residential area. Now you have three $900 million extensions instead of one huge $2.8 billion project, and it solves the "how far should we build this thing" dilemma.

[mr.x]

I wonder what's up with the concept of these mega projects. Why couldn't we do... Phase 1 VCC-Clark to Cambie (2015), Phase 2 Cambie to Arbutus (2018), Phase 3 Arbutus to UBC (2020). Manageable, feasible, meaningful phases. Phase 1 will provide a intermediate crosstown connection between two major rapid transit lines and will serve as an interim hub for the 99 B-Line, Phase 2 will connect the rest of the second biggest employment centre, and Phase 3 will complete the line to a major education, employment, and residential area. Now you have three $900 million extensions instead of one huge $2.8 billion project, and it solves the "how far should we build this thing" dilemma.

7-years of construction along the same corridor?

[DKaz]

7-years of construction along the same corridor?

Perhaps more like 3 years in each localized phase? Phase 1's construction would start 2011, be at substantial completion by 2014, and be running by 2015 and would affect Broadway from Finning to a bit past Cambie. Work would immediately start on Phase 2 of the project. By 2015 there'll be enough rapid transit connections from the north, south, and east to Broadway/Cambie to augment the impacts of reduced vehicular customers to the central Broadway businesses, plus there will still be plenty of office workers along the corridor that I do not see businesses along that stretch going down like the Cambie businesses. I am worried about the businesses around MacDonald, Alma, Sasamat, etc.

[officedweller]

I wonder what's up with the concept of these mega projects. Why couldn't we do... Phase 1 VCC-Clark to Cambie (2015), Phase 2 Cambie to Arbutus (2018), Phase 3 Arbutus to UBC (2020). Manageable, feasible, meaningful phases. .

If it's a bored tunnel, the deployment of a tunnel boring machine would require an access point for the removal of spoil - currently, it is planned to be on the Flats - i.e. there would be a conveyor belt the length of the tunnel for the removal of spoil. Phasing the project would require separate access points (open pit excavations at each stopping point, like at Olympic Village Station) - it may be difficult to find suitable locations for them along the route.

If it's a cut and cover tunnel - I doubt you'd have the same problems with phasing the project.

[Hot Rod]

why not do a double project?

TBM: Clark to Cambie
Cut/Cover: Clark to UBC

We could take advantage of already having the TBM (little LeLani) and go ahead and build the TBM portion beginning in 2010. In my mind, using a TBM here is essential, given the routing (VCC-Clark station is not in a straight line/route to Cambie, so it would have to curve under houses/businesses, necessitating a tbm). I figure, each pass would take a year, so two years of TBM - complete in the 2012 horizon. Construction of the stations (Cambie [enhancements to the Canada Line-City Hall station, extration point of the tbm, beginning of the cut/cover], Main/Kingsway and perhaps one in-between there and VCC-Clark) would take longer but all complete by 2014. Of course, the track would go further than just Clark though, so the trains can turn around - so the Cambie station would be final.

Also, was it decided that the Expo line would be 120m, the Millennium Line would be 80m, and the Canada Line be 40/50m?

With this as the case, I think we should change the routing of the Millennium Line to go from Columbia to VCC *eventually on to UBC. People will transfer at Cambie or Broadway/Commercial anyways, so why not make Columbia the third transfer? That way, the shorter trains of the Millennium and Canada Lines wont interfere with the longer Expo trains.

This would essentially make the Expo Line an express MASS TRANSIT route, making Millennium Line the crosstown. This would also lesson the confusion, since only Expo and Canada lines would serve downtown; Millennium Line would be the crosstown subway - 3 distinct lines along 3 distinct routes. This would also substantiate the separate stations at Broadway/Commercial (Broadway, elevated for the Expo; Commercial, underground for the Millennium).

People commuting from the east would ride the Millennium Line and transfer at Commercial (or Columbia) onto Expo for Downtown or Surrey, or Canada Line for the Airport. People in downtown would take Expo then transfer to Millennium to get to Coquitlam. People in UBC would take Millennium then transfer to Expo to get to Surrey. Makes things EASY!!!

Here's another idea. Instead of having an Evergreen Line - why don't we just do another Millennium Line extension along the 'evergreen route' but it would be Millennium Line. Chicago does this with their Red Line, it splits into two routes at the southside end. Essentially, Canada Line is doing this (having a split at OMC for either Richmond or YVR. I imagine in downtown, there would be two train routes for the Canada Line, one saying Airport and the other saying Richmond.

Evergreen Line is a very short route and therefore in reality could just be a trunk off of the Lougheed Mall station, giving the new Millennium Line two terminus's on the E End (Coquitlam wherever and Columbia) and UBC on the other.

Thoughts?

[raggedy13]

I thought the TBM got shipped away already... to somewhere like Argentina. Though maybe I just dreamt this. :shrug:

[mr.x]

^ yea, Sweet Leilani was disassembled and shipped off months and months and months ago when she reached Waterfront Station earlier this year. I believe she was shipped off to Russia.

[officedweller]

why not do a double project?

TBM: Clark to Cambie
Cut/Cover: Clark to UBC

Thoughts?

Sure, sounds feasible. Probably more like TBM: Clark to Granville/Arbutus & Cut & Cover: Granville/Arbutus to UBC.

And once you get past Granville/Arbutus, there's less commercial uses on 10th Ave. that would be negatively impacted by cut and cover. i.e. hospitals could be sensitive to cut and cover vibrations (the University Line in Toronto was bored in part for that reason).

For Evergreen Line see this (previously posted in the Metro Vancouver Transit thread):

http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/procurements/Q8-0123_-_11_RTM_SkyTrain_Evergreen_Rev3.pdf

For UBC background info see here (previously posted in the Metro Vancouver Transit thread):

http://www.translink.bc.ca/About_TransLink/Business_Opportunities/Bid_Details/Q8-0121.asp

For Expo Line background info see here (previously posted in the Metro Vancouver Transit thread):

http://www.translink.bc.ca/About_TransLink/Business_Opportunities/Bid_Details/Q8-0123.asp

[SpongeG]

but they said in the past that Evergreen will be built first and they can't back off on that

[Jared]

i thought i pointed this out in the other thread but I think there's some misunderstanding about the Prius article. He's not advocating at all that we should be purchasing Priuses and giving them to students. What he's trying to do is to put the COST of an underground SkyTrain line into perspective. He's saying that it will cost 2.8 billion dollars to build the line which is "twice the cost of the Canada Line per kilometre and three to four times the cost of the Millennium Line."

So essentially he says that we have a choice with how we want to spend our taxpayers money:
A) build one line to UBC and thats it or
B) build multiple rapid transit lines throughout the Metro Vancouver region

The report Condon released back in the summer (the "lots of trams instead of skytrain" one) was full of flawed assumptions. Here's a post I wrote back in the summer as of my thoughts on it. Comments are welcome.


- Portland's streetcar is basically a trolley bus on rails; it runs in mixed traffic and stops every couple of blocks. The report suggests you could speed it up by adding a bunch of improvements (i.e. grade separations), but those would be expensive, and suddenly the amount of tram you can buy for $2.8 billion is a lot smaller. But a smaller number isnt quite as dramatic, is it?

- The $2.8 billion figure is (apparently) supposed to be a final-cost figure (i.e. construction costs in 2020 dollars). I have no idea what year they got their Portland costs from (they dont make it clear), but I doubt they assumed another 12 years of construction inflation. Hence, the amount of tram you could built would likely be lower.

- The report automaticaly assumes the tram caused the massive redevelopment of downtown Portland; it it not safe to assume this would not have happened without it. If vancouver built a streetcar along Pacific Blvd in the early 90's, people would claim the streetcar caused Concord Pacific/North False Creek. And yet we know that's false, because all that development happened even without the streetcar. I'm not saying the tram didnt help, I am simply saying the report does not sufficiently analyse the three different possibilities (causation, correlation and co-incidence). Also, there is absolutely no analysis of redevelopment due to SkyTrain, which has shown itself to have, at the very least, a strong correlation to real-estate development. In fact, it would do even better if it wasn't prevented via zoning restrictions (*cough* Broadway, Namaimo, 29th Ave *cough*).

- The study's spending breakdowns for all those European bunch of cities are flawed, since it doesnt examine in which context these different technologies are chosen (i.e. why is there mixed spending and how is technology assigned to different routes). If anything the mixed spending speaks to the sensibility of using the correct technology where appropriate, something I'm sure most of us advocate. Ironically, Paris's Metro system, due to its close station spacing, is too slow to be useful over city wide distances, so they built the RER to cover these long distances. Likewise, use SkyTrain for regional stuff, and trams for localer (i know thats not a word!) stuff. Of course, you have to shrink everything from the Paris context to the Vancouver context, since we're much smaller, but the principle stands. Using Strasbourg as an example is stupid, due to the geographical proximity afforded by being a city of only 250,000, everything is closeby, even if its on the other side of town. A tram system (by itself) would not work in a much larger city, like Vancouver.

- As some others mentioned, building rails along Broadway is more expensive that normal, due to the massive amount of utilities along Broadway.

- They completely ignore all issues surrounding capacity on Broadway. The 1999 report by the CoV predicted, iirc, 120,000 to 150,000 riders/day. It should be noted:
a) report assumed a transfer to Rapidbus at Arbutus
b) numbers were pre-Upass
c) natural population growth has occured since the report
d) people are flocking to transit in droves, for both financial and environmental reason
e) a more built out system by the time the line reaches UBC (canada line, evergreen line already done) makes transit that much more attractive.

- Worst of all is the assumption that speed isnt important, and its station spacing which matters. There's a reason why the 99 B-line is chock-a-block, but the 9, WHICH FOLLOWS THE EXACT SAME ROUTE, doesnt have massive lineups. People want to get where they are going, and they want to get there FAST. Getting to the 99 is a much longer walk for me than the 9, but I still take it. Why...oh right, i save a hell of a lot of time, despite the longer walk. Portlands streetcar averages 16km/h. At 12km to UBC, this would be a 45minute ride, compared to the 40 minute B-Line.

- The map may make a sexy case for trams, but it doesnt in any manner differentiate between the quality of the two systems in the map.

- The notion that the SkyTrain will only serve Westsiders (cant remember if this was in the study or in the article) is silly. The extention is GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED in the Westside (which appently extends as far as Clark Dr. now, but whatever...), but it is really where the ridership is coming from that matters. People all over the lower mainland go to the Broadway corridor and UBC, and hence they will all benefit. The report suggests that it would be nice to be able to use the system to get around you own neighborhood (isnt that what buses are for?), but it ingnores the fundamental fact that lots of people need to commute cross-regionally. Last time i checked, not every neighborhood has a University. Actually, come to think of it, the study seems to have a strange notion that more kms of track is automatically better, when in fact it is the ability to attract (current and future) riders that matters.

---------------------


All that being said, I dont want to make it sound like I think tram/streetcar/LRT suck. They dont, infact im strongly in favour of building a bunch of them, but buildign them where they are appropriate. Broadway is not such a place.

[Jared]

Also, I'd like to say that I think stopping SkyTrain at Alma is ridiculous.

65% of B-Line riders are going to campus (as per stats posted earlier in this thread). This is quite a good chunk of people, and a SkyTrain even as far as Alma would only boost those numbers. Suddenly, a good chunk of the people taking the "keep people off the B-Line" buses (i.e. the 84) will be switching to SkyTrain, because it's simply so much faster than any bus will be. Additionally, you'll have all the people for whom transit is now faster than driving.

A Rapidbus would require a massive bus loop at Alma, and the Alma-UBC segment would probably be overwhelmed. You'd only need a 50% increase in ridership (easily doable) before it's as crowded as Broadway/Commercial is now. LRT from Alma to UBC makes even less sense. Although it could handle ridership a bit better than buses, you'd need a trainyard in there somewhere, and a system that small would have poor economies of scale in terms of vehicle maintainance. Additionally, I'm not sure about the grades just West of Alma, you may need to do some regrading to get the trains to go up (at which point the LRT much of what it's only advantage over SkyTrain is - capital cost.

UBC may be at the "edge of the region", but it is still a massive transit hub (#2 in the entire region, despite no rapid transit) and it will only get bigger. Ending the line at Alma would be like ending Expo at Main St/Science World. That last little bit accounts for a huge portion of the trips. It's worth it.

[mr.x]

^ great posts from someone who is actually in touch and knows what he's talking about. I agree 100%.

[hollywoodnorth]

Also, I'd like to say that I think stopping SkyTrain at Alma is ridiculous.

65% of B-Line riders are going to campus (as per stats posted earlier in this thread). This is quite a good chunk of people, and a SkyTrain even as far as Alma would only boost those numbers. Suddenly, a good chunk of the people taking the "keep people off the B-Line" buses (i.e. the 84) will be switching to SkyTrain, because it's simply so much faster than any bus will be. Additionally, you'll have all the people for whom transit is now faster than driving.

A Rapidbus would require a massive bus loop at Alma, and the Alma-UBC segment would probably be overwhelmed. You'd only need a 50% increase in ridership (easily doable) before it's as crowded as Broadway/Commercial is now. LRT from Alma to UBC makes even less sense. Although it could handle ridership a bit better than buses, you'd need a trainyard in there somewhere, and a system that small would have poor economies of scale in terms of vehicle maintainance. Additionally, I'm not sure about the grades just West of Alma, you may need to do some regrading to get the trains to go up (at which point the LRT much of what it's only advantage over SkyTrain is - capital cost.

UBC may be at the "edge of the region", but it is still a massive transit hub (#2 in the entire region, despite no rapid transit) and it will only get bigger. Ending the line at Alma would be like ending Expo at Main St/Science World. That last little bit accounts for a huge portion of the trips. It's worth it.

well put bro :cheers:

[squeezied]

well put indeed!

[CLC]

65% of B-Line riders are going to campus (as per stats posted earlier in this thread).

don't want to spur any argument. But I think we can't say for sure 65% of B-Line riders are campus-bound, the stats only show that the last stretch before reaching UBC the bus is 65% of top load?
From my observation I would say at least half of b-line rider does not take end-to-end trip (from Broadway all the way to UBC)

[nname]

don't want to spur any argument. But I think we can't say for sure 65% of B-Line riders are campus-bound, the stats only show that the last stretch before reaching UBC the bus is 65% of top load?
From my observation I would say at least half of b-line rider does not take end-to-end trip (from Broadway all the way to UBC)

19,860 passengers, or 45% of the total 99 B-Line load (44,000pass/day) go to/from the UBC. If you think this ratio is low, keep in mind that only 47% of the total skytrain passengers go past Broadway into downtown. By your logic, we should built the E- and M-Line only to Broadway station and use a shuttle bus to transfer people into and out of downtown?

And if they built the Skytrain to UBC, #17 most likely will terminate downtown, #9 terminate at Blanca Loop, #44 would probably be cancelled (using skytrain + canada line would be faster), same for #84 (they can route another bus such as #50 to take over the local portion of the route), and probably attract some riders off the #4, #25, and #33. Assuming the skytrain can attract a quarter of the rider off the #4 and #25 (I don't have the data for #33 yet), this equals to about 31,000 riders per day, assuming the skytrain attract 0 new rider and no ridership growth for the next 10 years. For comparison, this load is higher than anywhere on the M-Line, or the Expo Line east of Gateway station.

[dreambrother808]

As for doing the line in phases, I've heard this discussed before and the argument against was cost. Apparently, overall, it's cheaper to do it all at once.

[deasine]

Great post Jared.

By your logic, we should built the E- and M-Line only to Broadway station and use a shuttle bus to transfer people into and out of downtown?

Well put. That's exactly what people dont' understand right now.

[WarrenC12]

UBC may be at the "edge of the region", but it is still a massive transit hub (#2 in the entire region, despite no rapid transit) and it will only get bigger. Ending the line at Alma would be like ending Expo at Main St/Science World. That last little bit accounts for a huge portion of the trips. It's worth it.

Well put as many others have stated. May I add that it would be like the Canada line with no YVR extension. :D

[djh]

^Yes, all good arguments to do the extension in one go.

On top of that, there's political inertia. The odds are that if one government starts a phased project, if they get ousted at some point in the future, their replacements will either dramatically change, or halt the next phase of the project. Bang goes the phased extension all the way to UBC.

[Overground]

Let's not forget too, that people besides UBC students in the Metro, transit users or otherwise, may be encouraged to visit facilities/tourist and recreational areas more conveniently by train at UBC, where a bus trip before wasn't enticing. Myself being one of them.

[DKaz]

If they bore it all the way that'd be awesome. Except for station pits, no one would ever know that a line was being built. Any idea how much it cost to build the Olympic Village to Waterfront portion of the Canada Line?

[mr.x]

52 out of 63 people or 83% have voted FOR SkyTrain to UBC....nuff said.

[spitkicker08]

What about the people that didn't vote for skytrain to ubc. I'm curious what their reasoning is. Please share.

[CLC]

19,860 passengers, or 45% of the total 99 B-Line load (44,000pass/day) go to/from the UBC. If you think this ratio is low, keep in mind that only 47% of the total skytrain passengers go past Broadway into downtown. By your logic, we should built the E- and M-Line only to Broadway station and use a shuttle bus to transfer people into and out of downtown?


thanks for digging out this stats from translink document, is it 2007 figure? I never believe the myth many of forumers claimed that "majority of 99-b riders are UBC-bound". I've used the "bee-line" from almost day 1 of its operation in late 90s, and it is never the case that the line is used almost exclusively by UBC students. 45% sounds like an accurate figure rather than the jaw-dropping 65%.

I just don't want to take it for granted that an university must be connected by fastest means of rapid transit. A skytrain subway built as far as possible (depends on costs) than connect to rapid bus is still a lot better than "slower-than-bus" LRT. I voted the skytrain-to-alma option because I see it is the minimum requirment for this corridor.

[Stingray2004]

What about the people that didn't vote for skytrain to ubc. I'm curious what their reasoning is. Please share.

Hey, I voted for Skytrain to Arbutus... then rapid bus to UBC.

BTW, I don't want to be a party pooper as I also would love to have Skytrain extended all the way out to UBC.

But I'm concerned about the financial side of things... $2.8 billion is a huge chunk of change and might be able to be utlized elsewhere more efficiently. And then ridership levels between Arbutus and UBC also come into play.

It's the financial business case in the medium term that I'm also looking at.

[Hot Rod]

look in the long run.

finance it now, if you have to. It will pay dividends in the long run having a crosstown subway!

[agrant]

Well put as many others have stated. May I add that it would be like the Canada line with no YVR extension. :DOr a Canada Line with a branch that ended at Sea Island Centre to be specific.

[Jared]

don't want to spur any argument. But I think we can't say for sure 65% of B-Line riders are campus-bound, the stats only show that the last stretch before reaching UBC the bus is 65% of top load?
From my observation I would say at least half of b-line rider does not take end-to-end trip (from Broadway all the way to UBC)

You are indeed correct; I simply skimmed through this thread late at night, and didn't fully read into the numbers. My mistake. However, the point I made based on those numbers (only a 50% increase in ridership etc, see prev. post) still stands, as the bus is still 65% full.

One other thing I would like to point out is that an LRT down Broadway would unfortunately miss the Finning lands, which are (eventually!) supposed to develop into a post-secondary type area, and would likely see some good ridership.

[Jared]

If they bore it all the way that'd be awesome. Except for station pits, no one would ever know that a line was being built. Any idea how much it cost to build the Olympic Village to Waterfront portion of the Canada Line?

I don't think the TBMing is nessecarily as beneficial as one might initially imagine it to be, for three major reasons:
1) Obviously, there's the cost issue, TBMing is much more expensive, and that money could be better spent elsewhere.
2) TBM's are generally slower than cut and cover (longer construction time).
3) Then the issue of what street the line will travel under comes into play:
- Broadway has a lot of utilities under it, which means you'd need to tunnel very deep to avoid them. They'll still pose a problem when you dig your station boxes. Additionally, you're digging up 100m of Broadway (80m platforms, plus ventelation etc at each end) every kilometer or so; Broadway will be a traffic nightmare even if you dont cut and cover the tunnels.
- 10th Ave is a much narrower street. When you TBM, you have 2 options, 2 small tunnels, or one big one. If you do two smaller tunnels, they'll need some minimum amount of spacing between them so they dont collapse into each other. I'm not sure if 10th Ave can give this (unless you tunnel under buildings on either side, but I'm not sure about what manner (if any) of compensation you'd need to provide if you did that. Alternately, you can use a single big tunnel, but you'll end up excavating twice the amount of dirt as two smaller tunnels: pi*(2r^2), vs. 2*pi*(r^2), which is of course more expensive.

My prefered option would be what I've outlined below. As far as I can tell, its the cheapest and fastest way to do it without causing major traffic headaches and having major resistance from affected buissness (this time they'll be screaming right from the start, now that they've seen what happened on Cambie).

Anyways, here goes:

- Elevated from VCC-Clark, tunnel portal just before Finning stn.
- Underground station at Finning (as per those renderings someone posted back in the summer)
- TBM, with staiton at Main St and Broadway area, until the West side of Cambie (since I imagine they will need to TBM under the Canada Line, there's definately no space above the Canada Line tunnels). I'm assuming that its cheaper to simply keep the TBM running the extra distance rather than stopping it just West of Main and starting again just East of Cambie. Also, I'm assuming cut + cover under Cambie station is basically impossible, although if it was possible, perhaps they could built the Station right under the existing one rather than off to the West, the knockout panel on the EAST side of the Canada Line station could provide a second access point to the M-Line station.
- Otherwise, station on the West side of Cambie and 10th (to integrate with knockout panel on Broadway-City Hall station).
- Cut and cover a stacked tunnel from Cambie to Alma along 10th Avenue, with stacked stations with the platforms on the North side. Since 10th slopes down towards Broadway, you may be able to get away with less excavation than you'd otherwise need. There's no buissnesses along here, so you shouldnt have any bankruptcies. It will be noisy for residents, but hey, you cant make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.
- TBM from Alma to Blanca (to handle the grades just West of Alma, and protect buinessses along the strip just before Blanca. Not sure how they'd dig the station box at Sasamat though, unless they buy up a block of buissnesses and build it there. Otherwise you'd have a traffic/buissness nightmare anyways, and you might as well switch back to cut and cover after the grades sort themselves out.
- At grade along University Blvd as far as you can take it, before elevating or burying in order to inegrate with transit hub at U Blvd and East Mall.

[fever]

^ Sounds about right. There's a bit of a hiccup where 12th turns into 10th around Macdonald. It might also be possible to cut and cover between main and cambie. These are things that a detailed study would uncover, and the decision basically comes down to whatever's cheapest.

I could see this being phased. I am surprised by the loads west of granville. Are these percent of peak load or are these percent of total load? (UBC basically shuts down for 2/3 of the year so it's hard to believe that the figure is total load)

[officedweller]

I guess they don't know that at-grade LRT tracks will (1) still create a construction zone in the street with business impacts (like observed in Seattle) and (2) eliminate on-street parking forever.

From the Journal of Commerce:

January 7, 2009

West Broadway Merchants Association advocates for at-grade transit design

Jean Sorensen

correspondent

A newly-formed advocacy group, the West Broadway Merchants Association (WBBA), doesn’t want a repeat of Canada Line construction that they claim cost fellow merchants thousands of dollars, if the proposed UBC SkyTrain extension up Broadway goes forward, said spokesperson Donna Dobo.

“We are very much in favor of improving rapid transit,” said Dobo, owner of Just Imagine on West Broadway.

She said many merchants and residents were unhappy with the impact of the Canada Line and would be horrified at cut-and-cover or tunneling projects occurring in the area.

The WBBA is favoring an above surface light rail or tram system that would provide minimal disruption to local merchants.

The WBBA has met with various officials and Dobo’s impression from the discussions is that TransLink has ruled out any kind of elevated solution.

She maintained that tunneling is being favoured, but her group is opposed to the idea.

Boring large holes to drop down a tunneling machine could cause major traffic disruptions for an extended period of time, she said.

[The_Henry_Man]

I guess they don't know that at-grade LRT tracks will (1) still create a construction zone in the street with business impacts (like observed in Seattle) and (2) eliminate on-street parking forever.

From the Journal of Commerce:

Uh Oh, here goes those NIMBYs again. Oh god.....:hell:

[mrjauk]

Not only is the woman a NIMBY, she is completely blind to the nature of public transit.

Is there anybody who can give tell me how in the world an at-grade LRT (or Tram) system is any improvement over just adding more buses?

The only thing that makes for the M-Line extension to UBC is a subway through the Broadway corridor.

[cornholio]

makes me almost want to build a at grade LRT system just to spite her. we would shut down broadway, move all the utilities, tear up the street, and take out two lanes or all the parking. then we can tell her that we wanted to do cut and cover down 10th avenue which would have had virtually no impact what so ever, short term or long term, BUT you and your group nixed that plan so you got what you wished for.

[agrant]

Yea, yea. I think this is just the WBBA's way of letting people know they're watching. I really doubt the merchants will be the deciding factor on the type of transit, so I'm not concerned. They're thinking about the construction period and not much beyond that. This talk of "boring large holes" for tunneling machines... you gotta wonder if it's just a made up scenario. Nobody really knows how construction would be done until a review of all options has been completed.