Millenium Line expansion should at least meet up with the Canada Line
On December 12, the Ministry of Transportation announced $10 million for transit studies in Surrey and Vancouver, particularly related to the Millenium and Expo Line extensions. Both of which were announced in last year’s transit plan. So very little new information there. However, it has drawn some interesting follow up.
David Beers, the editor of the Tyee wrote a very interesting opinion piece called The Need for Speed. I have seen quite a few references in the news and on Stephen Rees’ Blog on the Patrick Condon report on transit. Light rail vs. trams vs. buses vs. cars vs. hybrids vs. skytrain. I have concerns about the methodology of the report. The cost and ridership figures are interesting, but there are a lot of externalities that are not considered. But this post is not about that.
David Beers postulates based on that report, an idea of using Light Rail on the Broadway corridor instead of skytrain. I have seen many post like this from Stephen Rees and Malcolm Johnston of the Light Rail Committee, but I have to disagree with their reasoning. Both men are very intelligent, but they view projects as if they are all competing for limited transit funding. And they view them in isolation. A wrong headed view in my opinion. I think transit projects are funded based on traffic projections, cost, and the right application of political pressures. They say LRT instead of skytrain because its cheaper, and we would get more bang for the buck. A valid argument that I disagree with. Skytrain and LRT are not the same technology. It is not a valid comparison. Skytrain is light metro (closer to subways, than light rail). It moves quickly on dedicated throughways. Also there are different kinds of LRT ranging from TRAMs to fast moving LRT on dedicated track (like in Ottawa) where there may be a mix of urban and suburban or rural settings. Skytrain requires higher traffic corridors than does LRT, but I believe that traffic exists now on the Broadway corridor and will continue to grow with the benefit of Transit Oriented Development. Plus these decisions are not made in a vacuum and we have two existing skytrain lines with a third opening next year.
I would like to see the Millenium Line expanded using skytrain technology at least to the Canada Line terminus. This is a high traffic area already as can be seen by the overcrowding on the 99 express bus route. Students using the Expo and Millenium lines disembark and Broadway and Commercial to hop on a bus. We know buses do not attract the same ridership that rail does. And I agree vehemently that the transit experience is a huge factor in attracting choice riders. That bus overcrowding I think is masking a latent demand that would be much higher if a high speed, high capacity rail line were introduced. And its not just students using this line. More and more business are locating along Broadway and an attractive transit service would attract even more offices to the area. The demand here warrants a skytrain line. But not necessarily out to UBC and not necessarily a subway.
Beyond the Canada Line, we can consider buses and light rail. The traffic for that portion is not as heavy, and since students are already making a transfer they would enjoy a similar if not improved transit experience compared to now. Connecting the Canada Line would allow greater connectivity. Not all users here are students, and an effective connection would boost ridership on both lines. Canada Line users could access the Millenium and Expo Lines and vice versa. There may yet be demand to extend Millenium to Granville, but I’m not convinced the ridership is there to support that. But I definitely think a combination of light rail and skytrain is the best approach.
Speed counts. Its just that simple. It attracts more riders and offers a whole lot of intangibles. Vancouver is a huge region, and most of us don’t often venture outside our little part of it. The ability to traverse those distances ties our communities together in ways that we cannot fully measure and cannot ignore. But that doesn’t mean we have to break the bank on building our transit systems. We just need to be sure that we are taking people centred approach to our transportation plans. Roads when needed, but transit too as well as cycling and pedestrians. There are a lot of streets on the Broadway corridor that have fairly low vehicle traffic between Broadway and the waterfront. Several of those streets could be shut down allowing portions of the Millenium Line expansion to occur at grade. This would reduce costs. There is no reason, we have to accept a $2 billion dollar price tag, but skytrain is viable at least to the Canada Line.
Stephen Rees replied:
“And they view them in isolation” I think you need to go back and reread what I wrote. I do not answer for Malcolm – he can that for himself. But I have always advocated for an integrated transit system – not just with other modes but with Land Use. And that is the nub of the issue – and one that you ignore.
As long as we build short stretches of very expensive rapid transit in already developed areas, we will have no resources left to deal with either existing suburbs or the new areas that will get opened up as the population grows. This debate has raged in this region for 20 years or more – “shape” new growth or “serve” exiting development.
In Vancouver particularly – but other areas too – SkyTrain was not allowed to stimulate change in land use. Stations like 29th Avenue, Nanaimo – or 22nd St in New Westminster – are still surrounded by single family homes – not transit oriented development. But worse than that, in much of the region huge areas of new development have been built with no transit service at all – or so poor that few use it. And that is by design. It is a very obvious political preference – and it is fundamentally unsustainable in the future.
SkyTrain can be built on the surface – but only by becoming a significant barrier to movement since there cannot be at grade crossings. Automatic trains and a LIM rail are incompatible with everything else.
December 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm. Permalink.
ngwright replied:
I don’t ignore land use, but you must admit that a balance is needed of existing demand and projected growth. There is no need to debate that fact. But the lack of development around those stations and the poor choice of development in other areas are slightly more complex. Transit service is just one factor in development decisions. And the region has admittedly seen some poor development decisions.
You’re right that the transit should be integrated, but the existance of the Canada Line as skytrain-like technology has been omitted from articles on LRT. It doesn’t have to be a competition, both can work. I think it is a valid argument. We don’t have to lock ourselves into skytrain forever, but there are areas where the speed and capacity of light metro are needed.
We should absolutely build LRT, and hopefully lots of it. I just want you to consider that skytrain may have a role to play.
December 17, 2008 at 7:23 am. Permalink.
Malcolm Johnston replied:
The argument for light-rail or SkyTrain should be light-rail versus light-metro, for that what SkyTrain is. There is an inconvenient truth that is not mentioned – light-rail made light metro obsolete because LRT could carry as many passengers as, as fast as, yet much cheaper to build than light-metro.
SkyTrain is an automatic, proprietary light-metro that has found very few takers and with recent operational problems during the snowfall (and every snowfall) SkyTrain embarrasses itself by not operating. There are many reasons for this, the main one is that it is poorly designed.
The role of SkyTrain is museum piece, like the Schwebbebahn in Wuppertal (monorail).
For every kilometer of SkyTrain today, we can build up to 10 km. of LRT/streetcar or 20 kilometers of tram/train, track-sharing with the mainline railways (the interurban to Chilliwack is a good example of such an application).
TransLink has made the grand mistake of building a very expensive light-metro and force feeding it with bus passengers, TransLink admits that 60% of SkyTrain’s ridership first takes a bus to the light-metro. This raises a very big red flag as it is a well known transit adage that once can loose up to 70% of potential ridership per transfer. I believe the RAV Line will show this Achilles heel in a big way when South Surrey and South Delta transit users abandon bus services because they are forced to transfer from bus to RAV. Already there is much agitation to retain local Vancouver express buses and if this comes about, RAV will become a White Elephant in a very short while.
Have you read Gerald Fox’s review on the Evergreen Line business case? If not, it is worth a read and it is reproduced on the Rail for the Valley blog site
http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/
We have SkyTrain and certainly we are not going to tear it down, but if we are to have a user-friendly transit system, we must build with LRT and build lots of it.
What will $100 million buy you:
1) Less than 1 km. of SkyTrain.
2) Up to 10 km. of LRT/streetcar.
3) Up to 20 km. of tram/train.
Simple economics doomed SkyTrain and light-metro.
December 27, 2008 at 5:00 pm. Permalink.