Here are dates for public consultation on the officially-named “Millennium Line Broadway Extension”. A.K.A. the Broadway subway. Or — the tunnel to Arbutus.
- Workshop Time and Place:
Date: Thursday, January 19, 2017 - Time: Session 1: 2 PM to 4 PM
- – or –
- Session 2: 6 PM to 8 PM
- Location: Creekside Community Centre
The Metro Vancouver Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation recently approved Phase One of the 10-Year Transportation Vision that includes the Millennium Line Broadway Extension.
The Broadway Extension will provide SkyTrain service from VCC-Clark Station to a new station at Arbutus Street through a tunnel along the Broadway corridor.
With Phase One approval, TransLink and the City of Vancouver continue to advance the planning for the Millennium Line Broadway Extension project, preparing for procurement and construction.
PLEASE TAKE THIS LINE TO UBC. PRESENTLY IT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE
VALUE BUT THE POPULATION INCREASE ON THE JERICHO LANDS AND THE ACADIA DEVELOPEMENT WOULD HELP JUSTIFY IT. REDUCED RATES FOR SENIORS AND STUDENTS WOULD HELP TO FILL THE LOW PASSENGER
PERIODS.
Shouting won’t make it more necessary. Most of the volume only goes as far as central Broadway and the rest can be handled by buses until we get LRT in place.
Thing is that there’s no particularly good reason in leaving the West Side as it is forever, which permanently stopping at Arbutus implies. Absent strong growth controls, the West Side would densify rapidly, like the West End did back in the day due to being a desirable place to live with good access to the city.
And if going to UBC is eventually in the cards, it’d be cheaper to get the tunnelling out of the way in one go, rather than requiring it to be restaged through likely even more expensive real estate in the future
That’s an astute comment from a construction and project management perspective. Phasing decades apart serves only a political purpose and has little to do with sound project planning and financing, especially considering the 100-year lifespan of the project.
With respect to the west side currently having a lower population, so what? They key is: to attract people out of their cars now and in the future; to shape growth; and to convert our cities into better models of sustainable urbanism by fostering, in part, less per capita energy consumption and greater diversity in regional transportation, employment and housing. The west side cannot remain under a glass dome forever.
Let’s not forget that UBC is a regional and international destination, and there are over 75,000 students, faculty and staff on the Point Grey campus, which is sure to top 100K sometime before mid-century. The transit ridership in the corridor is currently split 65% – 35% Central Broadway – UBC. That ratio may change along with a jump in ridership through what could become a big demonstration of induced demand.
Or take the money saved on a not-yet-necessary but very expensive line all the way to UBC and use it where it would make more sense right away. Concentrate on leveraging the subway for increased density in central Broadway and not waaay out there where trips will necessarily be longer.
Much of the city could use transit upgrades and streetcars/LRT are appropriate for the kind of incremental density that would be healthy for the city.
Broadway-UBC has the largest unmet demand of any major corridor west of Toronto. The subway is already 40 years too late. Moreover, their are many serious functional and geometric flaws in half-completing a rapid transit line. And as we all know the politicos will play hard rugby with the numbers for decades only because it’s a transit line and not a freeway.
The competition for funding should never be parsed between different transit projects. We need it all. The conversation needs to be shifted to transit (in all its forms) and sustainable urbanism vs. Autotopia.
Alex, your own numbers tell me only 1/3 of passengers continue to UBC. That tells me a subway to UBC isn’t necessary and will only encourage density farther out than necessary. Ending the subway at Arbutus should encourage increased density closer to the city where trips can remain shorter and development focused into walkable distances. That makes more sense than getting into a bitter fight over increased densities in Point Grey. Look at the war over a 5 storey building on Dunbar.
I agree we need more transit funding but currently we don’t. If we can raise more cash it makes little sense to squander it on something that might not really be necessary for 20 years or more. We can take that $billion and build a much much longer LRT or small network of streetcars either of which can serve, enhance and encourage density closer to the core.
It was mistake to put UBC at the end of the world. A bigger one to put SFU on the top of a mountain. We can’t undo them. But we can discourage the expensive sprawl the induce by focusing our development efforts where they make the most sense.
It occurs to me there is another reason to go only as far as Arbutus – at least for now. The plan is to use a tunnel-boring machine and the distance to UBC is twice as long. That could add at least two years to the construction time.
It isn’t necessary for the tunnel to run all the way to UBC. It could come above ground at Alma, or at Blanca. The first round of planning (Phase 1) includes deciding on the method to get the rest of the way to UBC, which is part of the longer term vision. Should be an interesting conversation.
Even to Blanca almost doubles the length of bore from 5.5 to 10 km.
My preference would be LRT from UBC to Arbutus, onto the corridor down 6th, under Granville Bridge head to the False Creek ROW to Main Street Station adding transit resilience to the central Broadway area and more than enough capacity for UBC and the west side.
Agreed.
The line can go to Arbutus for now and extended later, when more money is available.
A SkyTrain to Arbutus will carry combined Central Broadway (office & hospital workers) and UBC passengers over the highest demand portion of the corridor.
At Arbutus, buses can handle the loads going to UBC – plus the shorter distance means that buses can cycle through (turn around) much more quickly for higher frequency than over the current route to Commercial Drive.
Another factor to consider is that U-Pass passengers do not generate the same level of revenue as full paying passengers (i.e. office and hospital workers).
U-pass holders pay only $38 per month for a 3-zone pass.
http://www.ams.ubc.ca/services/u-pass/
Compare that to the $170 cost of an adult 3-zone pass.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Fares-and-Passes/Monthly-Pass.aspx
So you have to factor in the revenue generating potential of a further extension to UBC and whether it would be revenue neutral on the operations side (like the rest of the SkyTrain system, or a net drain on operating resources).
Why do the old chestnuts of one-time cost and revenue generation have to be trotted out every time for a major transit project proposal but never in a million years for bridges and highways? Where is the cost-benefit analysis comparing the UBC subway to the Massey freeway?
The fact remains that the capital cost of a subway all the way to UBC is peanuts compared to the capital cost of road projects when lifespan accounting is accounted for. $3.5 billion capital cost and a permanent 50% recovery of operating costs over 100 years is, really when you think about it, nickels and dimes. A UBC subway will probably have 70 years of profitable service. What highway project can boast that, let alone ANY long-term operating cost recovery?
Many toll highways can claim that too, eg highway 407 north of Toronto. Massey Bridge will be tolled, too. Roads last a long time with regular maintenance.
Here are some other US stats: http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/07/report_nj_turnpike_most_profitable_toll_road_in_nation.html
Tough to calculate are the non-toll benefits: time saved for commuters, less air pollution due to less idling, new real estate (industrial, retail, residential ..) projects with add’l GST, PST and income taxes, CACs, higher property taxes, higher land transfer taxes etc ..
Probably worthy a PhD thesis .. or 4 .. in Gordon Price’s department ..
A ten lane bridge replacing a four lane tunnel will not reduce air pollution no matter how many times Thomas says so.
It’s speculation if the increased land access created by more roads generates more taxes or just sprawls wealth.
Bridge / highway tolls recover only the base unamortised construction cost. Road tolls never recover permanent operational costs unless they are private and charge permanently higher tolls. Roads largely generate development with insignificant or extremely negative economic, land use and environmental attributes. Highway retail and commercial traffic mixed with a majority single-occupant vehicle ratio do not ever justify a large public debt for road projects. Roads and the sprawl they generate are more heavily subsidized than transit and the higher density development it generates.
Transit tolls (aka fareboxes) recover half of the operating costs in the Metro on average, which has been repeated here ad nauseum. I believe someone here mentioned the Expo Line now makes a profit. Moreover, high quality, frequent rapid transit service often generates orders of magnitude more value-added development and increased efficiencies in land planning than its original cost. It’s probably now about $12 billion (~10X the line’s cost) in economic stimulus value along the Expo — and still growing even after 30 years.
There really is no comparison, and now that we’re in a new century where these things matter, the comparisons that are made must account fro life cycle costs and benefits.
UBC indeed needs to pay more for the (free) U-Pass and also need to contribute to the line, like our native brethren who own land in UEL’s Block F and Jericho land. Far too much mooching off the general tax payers here by these two for-profit developments !
Wow, they don’t waste any time.
I guess there isn’t much feedback to give other than maybe where station entrances might be located.
Lots of ideas to feed back.
1) Down escalators as well as up escalators
2) Somewhat larger elevators to accommodate strollers, wheelchairs, bikes, etc
3) entrances on both sides of Broadway, with subway tunnels to access the station
4) Bike storage rooms, at stations. Suggest ramps. A good example would be at Arbutus station, whereby ramps down to the station and back up (to access bike storage) could be used as an underpass for the Arbutus Greenway, saving detouring to the crosswalk/crossbike.
5) Washrooms at stations, or at least at key stations
Lots more.
Free Park-and-Ride parking, to attract those that drive.
Multiple small commercial and retail spaces to create complete community spaces, like exist al over Asia, and most of Europe.
Yeah because free park-and-ride is what they do in Asia and Europe.
Not!
(For those who did not get the sarcasm.)
Suburban commuter stations in Paris, Amsterdam, London, Brussels, etc., all have parking.
Surprised. But I stand corrected.
Free parking in Central Broadway? LOL! Good one!
Let me consult a geography book on Metro Vancouver. Yep, as I suspected central Broadway is not in the suburbs.
When we lived in the UK for several years we had a suburban commuter rail station close by (in Staffordshire). I just checked, and their park and ride parking is GBP 5.20 per day, GBP 41 per month. Certainly not free. Maybe it is cheaper in London?
I would ask for runnels on the stairs for ease of walking bikes up and down stairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_stairway
We asked for this on Canada Line, but unfortunately this simple concept was not considered.
That would be good but also they should just allow bikes on escalators. It’s allowed in The Netherlands and works well without any problems.
With a high density massive development at Jericho imminent AND an already approved Block F at UEL AND existing AND continuing high density development at UBC the MetroVan planners need all resign or be fired if they are still thinking a line to Arbutus is good enough. It is a no-brainer that the line needs to go to Alma at the very least to connect to Jericho lands, and from thee as an LRT or subway to UBC.
I agree that it seems like a no-brainer that the line should go to UBC eventually. Even if the money isn’t there now, it should be built with the expectation that it will be extended someday.
I think people underestimate how big UBC is and could be as a transit destination and the importance of a strong anchor on the line to ensure the track is used efficiently.
Probably the same people who spent years mocking the ridership projections for the RAV (Canada) line, which in the end turned out to be hugely underestimated…
Build the tunnel as one project all the way to the UBC SUB loop. But ensure crossover tracks are in place at Arbutus Station so 60% of the trains can be reversed back to Commercial (or even Lougheed, New West or Surrey, or any combination of these), then 40% of the trains continue up to campus. As ridership changes, then take 5 minutes, hit some keys and alter that ratio to suit.
Simple, effective and very affordable because additional surface transfer platforms and bus or LRT lanes will never have to be built to accommodate the passenger traffic between two modes. Best of all, the transfer penalty planned for Arbutus will be eliminated and the line will offer much better quality to the service and attract more people out of their cars.
Detailed analysis by KPMG of this no-brainer line to UBC here .. and that was BEFORE they announced UEL’s Block F and Jericho land.
The bigger question is: why are we not drilling yet ?
Summary here: http://www.slideshare.net/vanmayorsoffice/executive-summary-ubcbroadway-corridor-study
Longer PDF file here http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/KPMG-Executive-Summary-UBC-Broadway-Corridor-2013-02-27.pdf
It could be called “The No Brainer Extension”.
They have “drilled” – they have taken test bores (core samples) along Broadway.
– maybe a year ago.
Thomas, thomas thomas. You can’t go building plebeian, neighbourhood lowering mass public transit anywhere near U.B.C. Have you forgotten so quickly who lives in that neighbourhood? Do you have the first idea what’s at stake? Let me refresh your memory.
The millennium was still young when, during a debate over the future of CP Rail’s Arbutus Corridor, Kerrisdale resident Pamela Sauder stood up at a meeting and uttered the following breathtaking landmark of arrogance and entitlement:
“We are the people who live in your neighbourhood. We are dentists, doctors, lawyers, professionals, CEOs of companies. We are the crème de la crème in Vancouver. We live in a very expensive neighbourhood and we’re well educated and well informed. And that’s what we intend to be.”
Remember these words Thomas, as you continue to bash those greedy self entitled government workers who have the temerity to demand to be paid a living wage for their labours and not have to be subsidized via low income tax credits and food banks for the privilege of living and working in Vancouver. Don’t mess with the creme de la creme – they own the best land and they know their rights.
We’re not drilling yet because your friend Christy has all our money wrapped up in big wide roads – just like you want. You can’t have it all Thomas. That’s a universal truth.
Oh yes we could.
Many options: We could borrow more. Or we could lower spending (say on civil servants and their cushy benefits). Or cities could raise property taxes. Or cities could charge far more for parking. Or we could do road / bridge tolls. Or we could charge $4/ride and not $2.10. Or we could levy more onto new developments. Or we could cap capital gains exemptions on personal residences, say to $1M per person ie $2M per couple. We could raise PST or GST and lower income taxes.
A political choice I guess.
We chose gridlock. We don’t spend money, we spend time (in traffic). That is a choice, too !
We also chose not to pass the transportation referendum. Probably many of those who are stuck in traffic voted no, so I guess they got what they asked for.
To me, the plan was not bold enough. For example: it did NOT address
a) a subway to UBC
b) widening of Lionsgate bridge
c) widening of Second Narrows Bridge
d) no subway along Marine Drive along N-Shore
e) no 3rd crossing or rail link to N-Shore
f) no spending restraints for out of control public sector salaries and benefits, incl TransLink employees, BC Ferries or Cities .. a colossal waste of money to the tune of 20-25% of all revenue taken in
g) no property tax increases
h) no parking fees in residential streets
i)no road tolls
j) no income tax reduction in lieu of all those add’l fees & taxes
That s why I voted no. It was a Mickey Mouse Plan that would not really address congestion in any meaningful way ! It was a band-aid !
And you are still waiting for Plan B I see.
Maybe someone should ask Justin to pay for the extension to UBC after approving Transmountain.
Well, UBC, our native brethren, the province, the city and the feds ALL should chip in as they have land and massive development (incl.massive future revenue) along the line. That is why I suspect it is stalled as Peter passes the buck to Paul, and Paul argues “Why me, no not me, and certainly not that much .. what about you Peter 2 ..”
The most important priority is getting the M-line to Cambie, to facilitate region-wide transfers (less than $1B). Almost everyone can agree that this is a good investment. As soon as you go a block west of Cambie, the case become less clear.
There are many other good transit projects in the region that look as good or better than the Cambie to Arbutus section. e.g. Bus rapid transit on Scott Road, bus rapid transit/247 bus lanes on 41st to UBC, and sidewalk improvements along the Frequent Service Network region wide.
Broken record alert: But the most important thing is to shift money from road expansion to transit. There are lots of good transit projects competing, and we will never all agree on what one is the very best to do next!
Yeah, that’s called the “missing link”.
WRT competing projects, you have the “growth serving” or Growth building” arguments (chicken and egg), as well as the “value” arguments
(i.e. Do you incrementally shorten an urban commute (billion $ to shave off a couple minutes for many passengers with a short commute) or more significantly shorten a longer commute for fewer passengers).
West of Cambie is insignificant? Say again?
With the second highest office and retail square footages and job concentrations outside of downtown, one of the largest hospital and medical sciences campuses in the country, several sites on the books with at least medium density development on the books, and one of the most heavily-travelled conglomeration of bus routes on the continent, I cannot agree with that statement.
By using the “scarce resources” tactic to dilute transit funding away from where the need is greatest and spread it thinly on many projects, you are accommodating those who have a motive to divide transit supporters, TransLink and local mayors while inflating their thin façade of fiscal responsibility. That is belied by the unconditionally massive amount of money being poured into highway infrastructure, of course, while transit is portrayed as a luxury that requires parsimonious debate and hair splitting over dollars and ridership with absolutely no cost benefit analysis.
We must not lose sight of the most important fact, that all transit funding is required ideally before road funding, and that the funding must go first to where the demand is greatest.
Good news too that no new tax was needed to proceed. This will be welcomed by the 66% of taxpayers that are being proved right and voted against the previously proposed new tax.
This will be well received by the majority.
Of course new taxes will be needed. Whatis proceeding is Phase 1 of the 10 year vision. That doesn’t build a subway or LRT line, it does the planning, and orders some more rolling stock. Phase 2 and Phase 3, over the next two years, bring in the funding for the major construction.
Justin Trudeau is flush with cash. Not so sure about the provincial government. Of course no debate anywhere on tax efficient spending eg civil servants salaries & benefits )on all levels, municipal, provincial and federal) http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fraser-institute-salary-1.3887133 taken into account higher salaries, more benefits, earlier retirement and lower layoff risks, savings of 25-30% on public sector spending are in order. THAT is where the money can be found for public transit. But of course that debate is swept under the (green) rug ..
Before you implied civil servant’s wages should be lowered with the difference funneled to developers in the form of free land as a solution to affordability. Do we get to vote on that?
An easier way would be to build in accordance with the economy and population, which would as it happens favour transit and a more efficient city. In other words, cancel monster freeways and LNG dreams put half the money onto the debt and the other half into where half the provincial GDP is concentrated and make it better: sustainable Metro Vancouver urbanism.
Actually, there was a property tax hike to cover some of the investment. You can’t build a great transit system without sufficient funding. If the referendum had passed, we could have made more ambitious transit plans. Unfortunately, the poor, beleaguered drivers who voted against the referendum will simply be stuck in traffic for many more years.
… Also, more noise and pollution; more injuries and deaths due to road violence; a less vibrant and less livable city. Aren’t you glad you voted no?
The old plan was a band-aid. It was WEAK. It would have made no meaningful difference to traffic on the roads. Only BOLD moves will do that: heavy road tolls, heavy parking fees AND rapid alternatives in lieu .. nit just a few more buses here and there !
Perhaps they are just sick of the tax payer abuse by city’s employees’ benefits programs ? http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/metro-vancouver-municipal-sick-pay-programs-cost-90-million-business-group
The money IS THERE, it is just sucked up by city and provincial employees who have abused the monopoly employer situation.
I wouldn’t hold my breath if I was you until the analysis and rebuttal is printed –that is IF ….
It seems inconceivable but there is not plan for a station at Burrard Street.
Right. That would be good. Also, I hope they remember to make the station platforms long enough for long trains.
It looks like there are things to bring up at the workshop after all.
Listening to a Translink planner recently, he commented that there is a lot of misinformation about platform lengths. The Canada Line platforms are exactly as long as they want them to be. They didn’t forget anything. That line is designed for more frequent trains, which are shorter. They will go to more frequent trains when they need to, before any talk of longer platforms (which were planned and accommodated in to the below ground stations, but not the above ground stations). The Broadway extension is different. The train lengths (and frequencies) will be predetermined, as the line is an extension of an existing line.
I understand that station locations are not finalized, as that would make it expensive to purchase property required for stations.
My understanding is that the private operator of the CL charges a steep fee to put additional trains on. In addition, the trains were designed for a shorter third car to be inserted in the middle of the two-car trains. Still, an upset limit to capacity will be reached one day.
I wonder if anyone has studied the costs and potential long-term benefits of buying out the private contract?
My understanding is that the private operator of the CL charges a steep fee to put additional trains on. In addition, the trains were designed for a shorter third car to be inserted in the middle of the two-car trains. Still, an upset limit to capacity will be reached one day.
I wonder if anyone has studied the costs and potential long-term benefits of buying out the private contract?
I understood that the fee was negotiated up front, that it isn’t a discretionary fee by the operator. If you are purchasing a service, shouldn’t it cost more to get more (frequent) service?
More frequent trains can be provided (more rolling stock), then the third (shorter) cars can be added, then the seating can be changed to accommodate more people per car. Add in any required changes to the ends of the line in Richmond due to the single track decision. Lots of potential for growth. It is a good problem to have, IMO.