Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

SkyTrain to UBC


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#31 Redwings4Cup

Redwings4Cup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts
  • Joined: 08-February 09

Posted 13 July 2009 - 08:40 AM

I love the idea.




If I lived in the area then I would hate the idea but I plan to go to UBC one day so I love the idea.

  • 0
Posted Image



#32 Krnuckfan

Krnuckfan

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 06

Posted 13 July 2009 - 09:37 AM

What's the difference between a tunnel portal, bored tunnel, and cut&cover tunnel?
  • 0

#33 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,187 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 13 July 2009 - 09:47 AM

What's the difference between a tunnel portal, bored tunnel, and cut&cover tunnel?


A tunnel portal is the entrance structure from an above ground system to a tunnel system. It's a costly structure as part of it would be like a bridge for the materials above it for a stretch as you have to be a certain depth below original ground even for a cut and cover tunnel.

Cut and cover is where you did a large trench and lower tunnel sections in, then fill back in the trench. Like your laying the giantest pipe in the world.

Tunnel boring is a deep underground mining like operation.
  • 0

#34 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,723 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 13 July 2009 - 10:12 AM

I love the idea.




If I lived in the area then I would hate the idea but I plan to go to UBC one day so I love the idea.


Do you plan to go to UBC in 2020, because that's when it will be built.
  • 0

#35 Dr. Strangelove

Dr. Strangelove

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,621 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 13 July 2009 - 10:19 AM

Hmmm I was always a LRT supporter but these guys bring up a lot of interesting points. The CDC rarely manages to change my opinion on things, but this is one of those times.
  • 0


Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

#36 TigerWilliams

TigerWilliams

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,781 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 03

Posted 13 July 2009 - 11:49 AM

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?
  • 0
"Met him in 1966. Forceful personality. Didn't care if people liked him. Uncompromising. Admired that. Of us all, he understood most. About world. About people. About society and what's happening to it. Things everyone knows in gut. Things everyone too scared to face, too polite to talk about. He understood. Understood man's capacity for horrors and never quit. Saw the world's black underbelly and never surrendered. Once a man has seen, he can never turn his back on it. Never pretend it doesn't exist. No matter who orders him to look the other way."


Posted Image

#37 Violator

Violator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,048 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 12:01 PM

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?


You take less cars off the roads moving it out this way.

But will translink ever figure that out...NO

We'll have flying cars before lite rail in the valley.
  • 0

#38 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,187 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 13 July 2009 - 12:56 PM

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?


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.
  • 0

#39 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 01:10 PM

^ 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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#40 TigerWilliams

TigerWilliams

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,781 posts
  • Joined: 24-April 03

Posted 13 July 2009 - 01:17 PM

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.


thanks. that makes sense to me.
  • 0
"Met him in 1966. Forceful personality. Didn't care if people liked him. Uncompromising. Admired that. Of us all, he understood most. About world. About people. About society and what's happening to it. Things everyone knows in gut. Things everyone too scared to face, too polite to talk about. He understood. Understood man's capacity for horrors and never quit. Saw the world's black underbelly and never surrendered. Once a man has seen, he can never turn his back on it. Never pretend it doesn't exist. No matter who orders him to look the other way."


Posted Image

#41 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 13 July 2009 - 01:38 PM

Build to Granville or Arbutus first, where it is absolutely critical. Extend to UBC in a later phase.
  • 0

#42 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 13 July 2009 - 01:39 PM

Would it be possible to extend the SkyTrain underground to SFU?

There was an aerial tram or gondola plan for them. Whatever happened to it?
  • 0

#43 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 01:52 PM

There was an aerial tram or gondola plan for them. Whatever happened to it?


It's still being planned, but at this point it's more of a vision than an actual working proposal. The main issue would probably be funding, SFU doesn't have the $50-million to build it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#44 GonnaWin

GonnaWin

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined: 05-April 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 01:57 PM

The commute to UBC along Broadway isn't that bad once you get past Arbutus. I agree that they can terminate around Granville/Arbutus and then phase in the Arbutus - UBC portion in a decade or two.
  • 0

#45 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,187 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 13 July 2009 - 02:14 PM

The commute to UBC along Broadway isn't that bad once you get past Arbutus. I agree that they can terminate around Granville/Arbutus and then phase in the Arbutus - UBC portion in a decade or two.


Ya, it's the smart way to go. A ton of the riders will actually get off before Arbutus anyways, beyond that the ridership becomes increasingly studant based. This traffic would be easily accomidated by buses, and more importantly stepped down when the trip to the university is significantly lower while central Broadway is a busy as ever.

And this will need to happen sooner rather than later. If the 99 was full before, wait till there is a third rapid transit line filling it up.
  • 0

#46 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 02:30 PM

Agreed. A full extension to UBC would be most ideal, but it can wait. Arbutus is the way to go (Granville is a bit too busy for the 99 B-Line buses to make their rendezvous).
  • 0
Posted Image

#47 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,187 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 13 July 2009 - 02:36 PM

Agreed. A full extension to UBC would be most ideal, but it can wait. Arbutus is the way to go (Granville is a bit too busy for the 99 B-Line buses to make their rendezvous).


Well, there we go. We have agreed on a solution, I am sure we all agree it needs to go down tenth ave. We redevelope the mini mall on the north end of Arbutus into a terminal facility with bus loop, and we are good to go.

Bring on the detailed design.

If someone wants to study it, they should do a cost benefit analysis of that single option. I bet you it would be head and shoulders above any of the other projects that they currently have contemplated.

Actually, do two. One bored tunnel, and one cut and cover with licences to construct and coversion of the overhead route to a residents only car access otherwise bike and ped mall finished plan.
  • 0

#48 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 02:44 PM

^ I believe the city is requiring that the IGA redevelopment on Arbutus be designed with an underground train station entrance in mind....meaning, space for an underground station entrance.
  • 0
Posted Image

#49 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 05:13 PM

Of special note, Translink should be realizing a study of its own on the UBC extension this coming fall.
  • 0
Posted Image

#50 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 13 July 2009 - 06:01 PM

^ I believe the city is requiring that the IGA redevelopment on Arbutus be designed with an underground train station entrance in mind....meaning, space for an underground station entrance.


It'd be nice if they considered leaving a space for a possible rail stop along that N-S Arbutus rail line too.
  • 0
Moo

#51 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 06:25 PM

^ and they will. The City has plans to use the Arbutus corridor for streetcar/LRT in the future. And that's one of the reasons why there would be an Arbutus Skytrain station, to meet up with the future LRT/streetcar line - a station transfer point.
  • 0
Posted Image

#52 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 13 July 2009 - 07:00 PM

Well there you go then :)
  • 0
Moo

#53 tom_1

tom_1

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 05

Posted 13 July 2009 - 08:19 PM

Arbutus to VCC-Clark would probably be 40% of the total cost of the enitre project. Politicians are too keen on completing entire transit projects but yet all the projects get delayed because of the enormous costs.


UBC extension- Phase 1 should be to extend to Arbutus, not all the way to UBC at once
Surrey extension- Phase 1 should be to extend to Guildford, not all the way to 168th avenue at once
Interurban Commuter rail- phase 1 Cloverdale to Scott Road, not all the way to Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack at once

Edited by tom_1, 13 July 2009 - 08:23 PM.

  • 0

#54 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 13 July 2009 - 08:41 PM

^ While a two-phased construction process would be most logical, there's a problem. For instance, the Millennium Line's 2002 completion was originally to have included a subway from VCC to Granville or Arbutus as well as the Port Moody-Coquitlam Line (now known as the Evergreen Line). The NDP couldn't find the money, so they decided to phase the project...even though a subway to Granville or Arbutus would have cost about $750-million back then in 2000 (compared to ~$1.5-billion today) and the Evergreen Line to Coquitlam would have cost $600-million (now, $1.4-billion). Keep in mind, the entire 23-km Millennium Line that exists today was built for $1.1-billion.

Then the Liberal party was elected, and shelved both extensions. In 2002, the RAV project (now known as the Canada Line) was proposed and by 2005 the project was finally approved by the elected Translink board.

Meanwhile, Translink was also planning to complete the Evergreen Line on its own....but rather than the originally planned SkyTrain, it would have been LRT. The Liberal government saw the incompetence with the Evergreen Line project stepped in, canceled the LRT technology and is now going for a "SkyTrain-like" technology....meaning, in public, it could be something like the Canada Line as the project will go to the tendering phase so it has to be neutral and can't be biased towards Bombardier's ALRT technology that we already use. The problem is that one of the main arguments that was used to cancel LRT in favour of SkyTrain was the lack of transfer for trains and operational and capital cost savings (same trains, train yard, etc.) from Vancouver: if a non-SkyTrain compatible but "SkyTrain-like" system gets approved, the whole argument for not building LRT is lost.

And with the Broadway extension of the Millennium Line, NIMBY's and LRT enthusiasts are dangerously fanning the flames for LRT being built instead of SkyTrain. These people don't ride transit when they claim "overall ambiance" and the "number of stops" is important and that speed is not important. The BC NDP candidate for the Vancouver Point Grey riding was a big advocate for LRT instead of SkyTrain.


I guess my point is: if we build a two-phased SkyTrain project now with intentions to extend it to UBC in the future, we might not get it whether it be a change of government or some asinine fringe group that spreads false information about the differences between LRT and SkyTrain.



Also keep in mind that it's usually cheaper to do things all at once as there are less construction start-up costs. Don't forget about construction cost inflation...the more you wait, the more it costs. We thought the Broadway and Coquitlam extensions of the Millennium Line would be open 3 years after the main Millennium Line opens....boy were we wrong. Unless we signed a contract that says "after phase I is built, you must build us phase II and neither party can cancel without major penalties" then there's no promise that the line/extensions will be built.

The Surrey extension is only 6-kms long, you can do it all at once.

Edited by nitronuts, 13 July 2009 - 08:44 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#55 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 16 July 2009 - 10:34 PM

Wouldn't a Skytrain extension along the Hastings corridor (from Downtown to say Cassiar St., where Burnaby, NE Sector, North Van and SFU traffic all converge) serve more people than an extension all the way to UBC?

Last I heard, it's the busiest traffic corridor in the CoV next only to Central Broadway.

Edited by Buggernut, 16 July 2009 - 10:38 PM.

  • 0

#56 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 16 July 2009 - 10:42 PM

Wouldn't a Skytrain extension along the Hastings corridor (from Downtown to say Cassiar St., where Burnaby, NE Sector, North Van and SFU traffic all converge) serve more people than an extension all the way to UBC?

Last I heard, it's the busiest traffic corridor in the CoV next only to Central Broadway.


I personally think the Hastings corridor is better suited for light rail. The corridor is too close to the high speed backbone that is called the Millennium Line.
  • 0
Posted Image

#57 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 16 July 2009 - 10:55 PM

I personally think the Hastings corridor is better suited for light rail. The corridor is too close to the high speed backbone that is called the Millennium Line.

Not close enough to alleviate most of the traffic on it. It would carry the load of both Hastings St. and Powell St, both of which get very busy.

An LRT or streetcar service would be too slow for those commuting all the way from Coquitlam or North Van, and a bad obstruction to a high traffic area.
  • 0

#58 nitronuts

nitronuts

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,779 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 07

Posted 16 July 2009 - 11:11 PM

Not close enough to alleviate most of the traffic on it. It would carry the load of both Hastings St. and Powell St, both of which get very busy.

An LRT or streetcar service would be too slow for those commuting all the way from Coquitlam or North Van, and a bad obstruction to a high traffic area.


I highly doubt there would be enough ridership to support a SkyTrain line so close to the Millennium Line, at least not in the next 25 years. I think we've got higher rapid transit priorities to cater to - south of the Fraser and the eastern half of the region.

Remember that we do have the Evergreen Line (yes, it'll be eventually built) which will expand the Millennium Line. It'll serve the Coquitlam area. Can't say much about North Vancouver.

The purpose of SkyTrain is to build a regional backbone, not to be every rapid transit solution in the region. There's a place for LRT in this region as well, and one of those corridors suitable for LRT is Hastings. Although on the slower side, LRT does have a high capacity that would suit the needs of Hastings. A streetcar/LRT would be nice, and perhaps could be a catalyst for European-like neighbourhoods around the line. There are more modes than just SkyTrain.

This hasn't been announced yet, but there are plans to build a West Coast Express station at Hastings Park as part of the renewal plan for the park. And of course, the contract to renew the WCE contract is in 2014 and it's quite possible we could see a vastly improved service with the new contract that also serves part of the Hastings corridor.

I'd wager a SkyTrain line that is elevated right after downtown and down Hastings would cost at least $2-billion, and you'd need maybe 140,000 riders per day to sustain it. The ridership simply isn't there.
  • 0
Posted Image

#59 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:23 AM

This hasn't been announced yet, but there are plans to build a West Coast Express station at Hastings Park as part of the renewal plan for the park. And of course, the contract to renew the WCE contract is in 2014 and it's quite possible we could see a vastly improved service with the new contract that also serves part of the Hastings corridor.

Are we talking all day bidirectional service of at least half hour frequency here?
  • 0

#60 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 17 July 2009 - 09:11 PM

And two to three times the costs. Good luck with that.

Between a) double the cost, and b) shutting down Broadway for 3 years, I think the former almost sounds more appealing.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.