Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

SkyTrain to UBC


nitronuts

Recommended Posts

Just a few of the 11 station alignments, these aren't all of the stations:

Cambie

broadway-city-hall1.png

Arbutus and Macdonald

arbutus-macdonald1.png

Alma

alma2.png

Sasamat

sasamat1.png

UBC

allison-ubc1.png

All: http://ubcskytrain.wordpress.com/our-plan/overview-route/

Truths 2: Realities of Ground-Level Light Rail Construction

Contrary to what some believe, the construction of ground-level light rail is nearly just as time consuming and disruptive as cut and cover construction. Surface light rail will also impact local businesses after construction in ways that are not anticipated.

1) The only remotely suitable corridor for ground level light rail is Broadway Street (and West 10th Avenue, west of Alma).

2) A large GVRD trunk sewer is located under Broadway, any rapid transit rail line located on the street will require a costly and time lengthy removal (via cut and cover trench) and relocation.

3) LRT on Broadway will require a construction timeline of approximately 2 years, a small improvement over cut and cover methodology. Businesses will still be affected due to the inconveniences of street closures: parking lanes eliminated; street traffic reduced to two lanes, and fencing containing a construction zone dividing the street in half.

4) When completed, a majority of parking spaces along Broadway and the 10th Avenue corridor (west of Allma) will be loss. In addition, traffic lanes will be reduced significantly (mainly 2-lanes throughout much of the corridor).

Below is a link to the 1999/2000 Millennium Line Phase II report, favouring SkyTrain over LRT (Adobe PDF file, 5.2mb):

http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/...ondthebline.pdf

An LRT excerpt from the report:

B. Light Rail Transit (LRT)

The LRT alternative evaluated in this study is a fair representation of the range of LRT designs that meet the planning objectives of the City and Region, but is not meant to be the preferred LRT design concept. This alternative was developed under a set of parameters provided by the project TAC and Steering Committee. These included development of an LRT concept generally contained within the current right-of-way, and in some instances within the existing curb-to-curb envelope. Other guidance included retention of two through travel lanes in each

direction west of Macdonald, and retention of left turn lanes at major intersections. Should LRT be selected as the preferred technology, a more detailed study and comparison of LRT options will be undertaken. Specific design elements requiring resolution include the width of station platforms at the Commercial, Columbia, Willow, Oak, and Granville stations. Station platforms located at Fraser and Sasamat will require special attention, due to the grades in these areas. The transition from Broadway to 10th at Alma Street warrants added exploration of options to accommodate the auto, bus, pedestrian, and LRT requirements in this

area.

Service Concept – The LRT alternative is designed to serve the dual function of serving regional trips headed to major destinations within the Broadway/Lougheed corridor, and also to provide local circulation within the Central Broadway area. Station spacing will average 400 metres east of Arbutus (2 to 3 blocks), while station spacing west of Arbutus will be much less frequent (6 to 8 blocks). While operating at street level within a mixed automobile and pedestrian environment, the light rail alternative would employ a number of measures to make operations as time-competitive as possible. These measures include a raised rail median to provide separation from auto traffic in order to allow the trains to operate without interacting with encroaching traffic. At signalized intersections, the trains would receive preference in terms of either advancing or holding signals to allow trains to proceed without significant delay. Proof-of-payment fare collection would allow all-door loading on one side, thereby reducing station dwell time. The use of low-floor vehicles would also foster faster loading, further reducing the stop dwell times.

Alignment – The LRT alignment alternative evaluated would operate on Broadway between Commercial and Alma, on Alma between Broadway and 10th, on 10th between Alma and Blanca, and on University Boulevard from Blanca to the west terminal on the UBC campus. The alignment on Alma, although geometrically possible, would impact traffic substantially, suggesting that other options, including a diagonal alignment through the block east of Alma, be explored if LRT were to be pursued. (See linear maps that follow.)

Stations – Stations would be located at Commercial, Clark, Fraser, Main, Columbia, Cambie, Willow, Oak, Birch, Granville, Burrard, Arbutus, Macdonald, Alma, Sasamat and UBC. Due to the constrained right of way available to accommodate sidewalks, parking, auto lanes, the rail alignment, and station platforms, some areas required that minimum widths be used. The Columbia Station may need to be moved or property acquired to provide added platform width. Platforms were laid out in a number of configurations, including single center platforms, dual side-by-side platforms, near side or far side platforms, and offset or shadowed platforms. The platform widths vary, although attempts were made to provide greater widths at major transfer points. High frequency service will

somewhat offset the need for greater platform width. Given the median rail alignment, platforms will require designs that protect passengers from adjacent traffic as well as to prevent spray from passing traffic. To accommodate a proof-of-payment system, platforms would be equipped with ticket vending machines and validators, as well as sheltered waiting areas, information systems, and lighting.

Operations – The LRT alternative would operate between Commercial to UBC with each train making all stops. Service would be provided by two-car trains during most hours, although single-car operation may be sufficient during some

periods. Two-car trains provide a practical capacity in the range of 320 passengers. During peak hours, 3 minute headways would be provided, with 5 to 10 minute service midday, evenings, and Saturdays; and 10 to 15 minute service during late nights and on Sundays. The proof-of-payment system would allow use of all doors for loading, resulting in an average dwell time of 20 seconds. Maximum speed of the system would be 50 km/hour.

Vehicles – To size the system and establish vehicle capacity, this study assumed commonly used North American light rail vehicles. The standard width of light rail cars is 2.65 metres; lengths vary with most cars in the range of 26 to 28 metres. Low floor cars are recommended because they reduce the loading time at stops for all passengers. Narrower vehicles in the range of 2.4 metres are potentially available, although not common in the North American market. The advantage of narrower vehicles is the reduced space required, in the range of .8 metres, for a two-track alignment. Such space could be allocated to wider platforms or sidewalks. The disadvantage of the narrower cars is the loss of seating and on-board circulation space. The latter is a particularly important consideration for service with relatively frequent stops and high levels of on and off riders.

Connecting and Local Transit Service - The LRT alternative would connect to North-South Rapid Transit service either at Cambie (SkyTrain from Richmond to downtown Vancouver) or Arbutus (LRT from Richmond to downtown Vancouver). Parallel local service would be provided between Boundary and Main by Route 9. Route 10 would provide local service between Granville and UBC. Given the LRT station spacing, Route 9 service would be discontinued between Main and Granville. Routes 42, 3, 20, 51, 16, 17, 19, 15, 50, and 8 would provide additional connecting local bus service.Traffic, Parking and Access – The LRT alternative would provide for two continuous through travel lanes in each direction between Commercial and Trafalgar. Between Trafalgar and UBC the design retains a single travel lane in each direction, with left turn lanes at major intersections. At all station locations, on-street parking would be removed to accommodate auto lanes, rail right of way, station platforms, and sidewalks. In many sections parking would be eliminated or reduced to one side of the street. Parking would be retained on both sides of

Broadway between Trafalgar and Alma. Minor, unsignalized streets and midblock access driveways would be converted to right-in and right-out in order to prevent uncontrolled crossing of the rail alignment. The following drawings illustrate the light rail alignment, travel lane configuration, and parking and access restrictions. Conceptual design of light rail platform layouts follow for several station locations.

Right of Way and Property – The LRT conceptual alternative would require acquisition of property at two locations along the alignment, otherwise the alignment will be built within current public right of way. These locations are on the

south side of Broadway between Kingsway and Main, and on the southeast quadrant of the Broadway and Cambie intersection. In addition, property will be required to accommodate a maintenance and operations facility, which will include the storage of vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, you're missing the point! The group is AGAINST LRT, in favour of Skytrain! And "they" haven't figured anything out, this is just a group of people who support a common cause.

Hey nitro, could I maybe suggest that you shorten the original post and make it more clear and to-the-point? I know it's copied and pasted from the facebook group, but if people really want to read it all they can easily find it in the group. As it is, people's attention spans aren't long enough to read it all and many will end up missing the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what's kind of getting lost in the "skytrain vs. LTR" debate is the fact that we need rapid transit to UBC in the first place. What kind should really be a secondary debate (though I must say that in my mind, skytrain is the ONLY option). Anyway, stuff like 99-B Line ridership stats, the student & working population of UBC, Broadway congestion estimates, route maps, etc. are the first bits of info people need. Followed up with info on why skytrain would best fulfill the requirements of the Broadway corridor. The way the info's being presented right now, it seems like it's all about LTR, and this might confuse people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ you could be right on the last point. 2 or 3 years ago, they said Broadway buses carried 100,000 passengers daily with more than half (about 60,000) being from the 99 B-Line. The rest is from the trolleys. The projected ridership for the Canada Line, despite what critics say it's actually quite realistic and is right on the money, will achieve a ridership of 100,000 daily. I'm pretty sure the Canada Line will reach 100,000 within the first 2 years of operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ you could be right on the last point. 2 or 3 years ago, they said Broadway buses carried 100,000 passengers daily with more than half (about 60,000) being from the 99 B-Line. The rest is from the trolleys. The projected ridership for the Canada Line, despite what critics say it's actually quite realistic and is right on the money, will achieve a ridership of 100,000 daily. I'm pretty sure the Canada Line will reach 100,000 within the first 2 years of operations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it make more sense philosophically, to expand Skytrain/LRT/Commuter rail/whatever technology is most appropriate to areas under-served by transit currently (say Surrey/south of the Fraser / Fraser Valley / Tri-Cities). rather than to an area already served well (if somewhat sardine-canned I understand).

I'm assuming the end goal being less cars on the road/greenhouse gases/etc.?

what's our best bang for the buck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it make more sense philosophically, to expand Skytrain/LRT/Commuter rail/whatever technology is most appropriate to areas under-served by transit currently (say Surrey/south of the Fraser / Fraser Valley / Tri-Cities). rather than to an area already served well (if somewhat sardine-canned I understand).

I'm assuming the end goal being less cars on the road/greenhouse gases/etc.?

what's our best bang for the buck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it make more sense philosophically, to expand Skytrain/LRT/Commuter rail/whatever technology is most appropriate to areas under-served by transit currently (say Surrey/south of the Fraser / Fraser Valley / Tri-Cities). rather than to an area already served well (if somewhat sardine-canned I understand).

I'm assuming the end goal being less cars on the road/greenhouse gases/etc.?

what's our best bang for the buck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ agreed. while rapid transit is needed the eastern part of the region, rapid transit should go to areas that have already been densified and deserve rapid transit. Not to mention, a Broadway/UBC extension is an assured success and would bring more ridership than any other rapid transit extension the region.

But I would be able to compromise to have the extension to Arbutus, and have a phase II extension UBC after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By far best bang for buck would be to put the rapid transit in the busiest corridor, which would then free up those buses and drivers to put in new rapid bus services for the underserved area. It would win the cost benefit ratio by a mile, not to mention have a much larger impact to service in the underserved areas than one single line. Not to mention that as developement in the underserved areas begins to shift it's transportation model due to the increased availability of transit it sets itself up for it's own future rapid transit as the demand warrants it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...