Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit - Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows | BRT/RRT?

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Brentwood is also limited by a cemetery, swaths of SFHs which will be upzoned by the provincial TOD requirements but likely won't be seeing highrises this generation, low rise (not mid rise) apartments to the east and southeast, and the Still Creek industrial lands. You also should not be so closed-minded to rigidly think that having a Gilmore Station connection won't give Burnaby a chance to consider development opportunities west of Gilmore. Substations can be buried if the economics make sense, and office parks can become office builds/mixed office residential. Cemeteries are bit harder to work with but the cemetery isn't even within 400m of the Skytrain Station.

Let's compare it empirically.



As you can see, in the areas that zoned for high density, Gilmore has a 800m catchment of 62ha, whereas Brentwood has a catchment 147ha. Not comparable.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Gilmore also has "massive developments, and lots that will become massive developments" surrounding it as well, or are you not up to speed with the Gilmore Place and Buchanan West plans? Quite frankly, the area immediately surrounding Gilmore Station is poised to be significantly denser than Brentwood in the coming years.

Are you not familiar with with the existing Amazing Brentwood, Solo District, Concord Brentwood (within 800m of the station), as well as the proposed Brentwood West, Grosvenor Brentwood, etc. Even Buchanan West and Onni's Gilmore Place will be partially within 800m of Brentwood Station. Whatever is going up around Gilmore will be within a short walking distance of Brentwood, whereas developments to the east of Brentwood won't be the same for Gilmore.

(You say Burnaby can always upzone to the west, but you could say the same about all the land in Brentwood south of the tracks, both stations have equal amounts of land around them, but one has more stuff now and more land zoned for density today).

Originally Posted by chowhou

As I've mentioned previously, it's undeniable that Brentwood has a bit more ridership potential than Gilmore but to pretend that it eclipses Gilmore the way that Metrotown eclipses Patterson is unreasonable and pretty ridiculous.

50 storey towers are going up around Patterson too, the only difference is Gilmore would have more office space than Patterson, which has commercial and office restricted to Kingsway, although within 400m. A future Gilmore would definitely be denser than Patterson, but both suck as interchanges because of the much more dominant station next door.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Oh come on. It doesn't matter what is in between stations once a line is completed. It's extremely inconsistent of you to say that it makes sense for Burquitlam to Port Moody to not have stations because "it's low density with zero commercial".

It...does matter what's in between stations once they are completed. Planners should always plan for the potential for infill stations. That's what was done on the Canada Line with 33rd, 57th, and Capstan, and on the Expo with Victoria Hill.

It's not inconsistent, because I literally said Burquitlam to Port Moody should get an infill station. Did you not read what I wrote?

"I would say an infill station at Douglas St would be worth exploring in the future though"

Originally Posted by chowhou

the same way it makes sense for the Purple line to bypass a relatively uninteresting area for 2km, or it doesn't. Same for the SLS reference.

Burnaby Heights is an interesting area, a dense area with a lot of commercial. It is a destination. A lot of businesses and apartments. The same cannot be said for the land in-between Burquitlam and Port Moody, and the literal farmland for the SLS.

[officedweller]

The overlap in catchment areas on the map above also shows that for residents in the overlapping area, a Purple Line Gilmore Station is still within walking distance.

If there were to be a Gilmore transfer station, it would likely be elevated on the west side of Gilmore Ave. with an overhead walkway from the Gilmore Station mezzanine.
The guideway would have to be tall to clear the M-Line guideway, but not likely taller than the M-Line guideway at Kensington interchange. Hydro lines may have to be raised.

I've marked up a couple of Lexus' April 4, 2024 pics:

Originally Posted by Lexus

2024-04-04

There's also precedent for avoiding an expensive underground transfer station when the Dunsmuir Station was deleted from the Canada Line, leaving the only transfer between Canada Line and Expo Line at Waterfront Station.

On the other hand, TransLink also avoided a one station transfer for SFU students by terminating the Expo Line branch at Production Way Station instead of the originally conceived Lougheed Station terminus (but this was an operational decision without a mega price tag).

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Let's compare it empirically.

As you can see, in the areas that zoned for high density, Gilmore has a 800m catchment of 62ha, whereas Brentwood has a catchment 147ha. Not comparable.

When have we ever planned around raw residential land coverage...? Nanaimo must be one of the best station locations in Metro Vancouver and Waterfront must be really garbage I guess...

Are you not familiar with with the existing Amazing Brentwood, Solo District, Concord Brentwood (within 800m of the station), as well as the proposed Brentwood West, Grosvenor Brentwood, etc. Even Buchanan West and Onni's Gilmore Place will be partially within 800m of Brentwood Station. Whatever is going up around Gilmore will be within a short walking distance of Brentwood, whereas developments to the east of Brentwood won't be the same for Gilmore.

(You say Burnaby can always upzone to the west, but you could say the same about all the land in Brentwood south of the tracks, both stations have equal amounts of land around them, but one has more stuff now and more land zoned for density today).

You're so biased. By your own logic, most of those will be within 800m of Gilmore Station too if people really really don't want to take the train one station and instead want to walk. By the way, are you forgetting that moving the interchange one station over doesn't ban The Amazing Brentwood residents from using it? I heard a rumour that Translink will actually allow them the right to ride the train one station over to the interchange if they want to head North-South (for free even! As long as they were going to take the Purple Line regardless.)

Remember remember remember! I never said that Brentwood didn't have more stuff! The big question is whether Brentwood has so much more stuff that it justifies spending potentially an extra billion dollars on tunnelling to build the station 800m to the east.

50 storey towers are going up around Patterson too, the only difference is Gilmore would have more office space than Patterson, which has commercial and office restricted to Kingsway, although within 400m. A future Gilmore would definitely be denser than Patterson, but both suck as interchanges because of the much more dominant station next door.

Why are you so adamant that putting interchanges in the densest place must be the best option and anywhere else would suuuck? If anything, if all we care about is where is best for an interchange you actually would want them to be in the least dense places because you should be expecting a lot movement through the station and you'd want to limit the number of extra people entering. I'm convinced you just want a Brentwood interchange because it feels good, not because of any real reason. After all, it's in the middle! How could you not put the train station in the middle!?

It...does matter what's in between stations once they are completed. Planners should always plan for the potential for infill stations. That's what was done on the Canada Line with 33rd, 57th, and Capstan, and on the Expo with Victoria Hill.

It's not inconsistent, because I literally said Burquitlam to Port Moody should get an infill station. Did you not read what I wrote?

"I would say an infill station at Douglas St would be worth exploring in the future though"

I'm so sorry I must have misunderstood you, that means you're advocating for no station from Burquitlam to Douglas which is, let's see... about 2.75km. Funny I feel like I've seen that number before...

Burnaby Heights is an interesting area, a dense area with a lot of commercial. It is a destination. A lot of businesses and apartments. The same cannot be said for the land in-between Burquitlam and Port Moody, and the literal farmland for the SLS.

Central Lonsdale is an interesting dense area with a lot of commercial, Maplewood is an interesting dense(ish) area with some commercial, Hastings-Sunrise is an interesting dense area with a lot of commercial. More likely than not these destinations will not be directly serviced by this line, and that's okay. The business case development needs to determine whether it's justified to take a much more challenging and much more expensive route when the mandate is to take the less challenging and less expensive route (above grade as much as possible). Odds are it's not.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The overlap in catchment areas on the map above also shows that for residents in the overlapping area, a Purple Line Gilmore Station is still within walking distance.

Except you know, everyone who lives further to the east.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The overlap in catchment areas on the map above also shows that for residents in the overlapping area, a Purple Line Gilmore Station is still within walking distance.

If there were to be a Gilmore transfer station, it would likely be elevated on the west side of Gilmore Ave. with an overhead walkway from the Gilmore Station mezzanine.
The guideway would have to be tall to clear the M-Line guideway, but not likely taller than the M-Line guideway at Kensington interchange. Hydro lines may have to be raised.

I've marked up a couple of Lexus' April 4, 2024 pics:

There's also precedent for avoiding an expensive underground transfer station when the Dunsmuir Station was deleted from the Canada Line, leaving the only transfer between Canada Line and Expo Line at Waterfront Station.

On the other hand, TransLink also avoided a one station transfer for SFU students by terminating the Expo Line branch at Production Way Station instead of the originally conceived Lougheed Station terminus (but this was an operational decision without a mega price tag).

Not to mention that Gilmore Station was literally designed from the get-go to be torn apart and has a very clear path to building passages for people transferring as you indicate. Compare Gilmore Station's architecture and the design of the fare paid zone to Brentwood's. The potential for building a transfer into the existing Brentwood station is far less trivial.

To be fair, it's a little unfair to compare the Kensington guideway height to a future Gilmore Station height because no one needs to get to the ground at Kensington. Might as well say the Skybridge clears 123m above the Fraser so it's fathomable for a future Gilmore Station to be that high. I don't think construction of a 20m high station is a technical issue at all, it's just whether that's convenient enough for users. I think it's evident that Translink believes 20m of grade separation is reasonable on the Broadway Extension so it should be reasonable here.

Another example of Translink choosing the above grade solution is on the original Expo Line. They could have tunnelled the Skytrain from Edmonds over to 10th Ave and then down 6th or 8th St for significantly better residential + commercial + office coverage, especially at the time (Edmonds Station was basically built in the middle of nowhere at the time, and 22nd is, well, still the middle of nowhere), but instead they followed the interurban RoW all the way down to New West because it was the cheaper way to go.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

When have we ever planned around raw residential land coverage...? Nanaimo must be one of the best station locations in Metro Vancouver and Waterfront must be really garbage I guess...

If you need it explained to you, in terms of zoning Waterfront is surrounded by high density offices and the like, Nanaimo only recently got upzoned, but only 5 FSR within 200m, 4 200m-400m, and 2 400m-800m. Compare that to Brentwood and Gilmore, which in the areas that are zoned for density are about the same, with Brentwood having more of it, both within 800m, and beyond, the same way Waterfront has more stuff beyond 800m than Nanaimo.

Originally Posted by chowhou

You're so biased. By your own logic, most of those will be within 800m of Gilmore Station too if people really really don't want to take the train one station and instead want to walk.

Again, please read my whole post please.

"Even Buchanan West and Onni's Gilmore Place will be partially within 800m of Brentwood Station. Whatever is going up around Gilmore will be within a short walking distance of Brentwood, whereas developments to the east of Brentwood won't be the same for Gilmore."

Originally Posted by chowhou

I heard a rumour that Translink will actually allow them the right to ride the train one station over to the interchange if they want to head North-South (for free even! As long as they were going to take the Purple Line regardless.)

It should be designed so that the interchange is closest within walking distance for the most people (costs allowing). This isn't always possible, but with the Brentwood neighbourhood, should the price of tunneling through Burnaby Heights not be prohibitive, Brentwood Station is the obvious choice for an interchange, as it is the middle. This means shorter travel times for the average Brentwood neighbourhood resident and traveler (and mind you, Option 2 is shorter in length than Option 1, so travel times for those just going through aren't as impacted. It's not a massive deviation).

Originally Posted by chowhou

Remember remember remember! I never said that Brentwood didn't have more stuff! The big question is whether Brentwood has so much more stuff that it justifies spending potentially an extra billion dollars on tunnelling to build the station 800m to the east.

I agree, but it remains to be seen if that would actually be the case. It might not be a billion more, it could be low enough to justify it (mind you, it is a shorter route too, which might offset some but not all extra costs). As I said before, tunnel boring through the mountain would likely be much cheaper, like with the evergreen, than bore tunneling along Hastings, like with Broadway

Originally Posted by chowhou

Why are you so adamant that putting interchanges in the densest place must be the best option and anywhere else would suuuck? If anything, if all we care about is where is best for an interchange you actually would want them to be in the least dense places because you should be expecting a lot movement through the station and you'd want to limit the number of extra people entering. I'm convinced you just want a Brentwood interchange because it feels good, not because of any real reason. After all, it's in the middle! How could you not put the train station in the middle!?

If the interchange were at Gilmore, anyone further east, who would have walked if it were at Brentwood, would now be using up the M-line for only one or maybe two stations, traffic that would be less intense if it were in the middle.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'm so sorry I must have misunderstood you, that means you're advocating for no station from Burquitlam to Douglas which is, let's see... about 2.75km. Funny I feel like I've seen that number before...

1. The density in between Douglas and Burquitlam is very low, unlike Burnaby Heights, so an infill station would not be justifed, unlike with Burnaby Heights. Even with the redevelopment that is happening there, it is very little, and would be in proximity to Douglas St (mind the hill).

2. It's unlikely an infill station could even go there if the station would be on too much of an incline. As I've said, we should plan ahead for the possibility of infills, and it's not my fault, I'm not the one who designed the Evergreen extension.

Again, the stretch between the PNE and Brentwood with the heights is a dense, commercial filled, destination, the stretch between Port Moody and Burquitlam is not.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Central Lonsdale is an interesting dense area with a lot of commercial, Maplewood is an interesting dense(ish) area with some commercial, Hastings-Sunrise is an interesting dense area with a lot of commercial. More likely than not these destinations will not be directly serviced by this line, and that's okay. The business case development needs to determine whether it's justified to take a much more challenging and much more expensive route when the mandate is to take the less challenging and less expensive route (above grade as much as possible). Odds are it's not.

Agreed. As I've said though, if tunnel boring through Burnaby Heights is not as expensive as elevating along Hwy 1, then it should be chosen because of the advantages of having a more central Brentwood interchange, and a station in the centre of the Heights. It remains to be determined if tunnel boring here would even be as expensive as you think it might be. It's these two things together that make Option 2 a better route, it's just the cost that would be the determining factor.

In brief, if Option 2 were billions of dollars more expensive, as you said, I would be against it. If it's not that much more expensive and around the same price, Option 2 would be my choice.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Another example of Translink choosing the above grade solution is on the original Expo Line. They could have tunnelled the Skytrain from Edmonds over to 10th Ave and then down 6th or 8th St for significantly better residential + commercial + office coverage, especially at the time (Edmonds Station was basically built in the middle of nowhere at the time, and 22nd is, well, still the middle of nowhere), but instead they followed the interurban RoW all the way down to New West because it was the cheaper way to go.

This is a good point, but at the same time, it would have been so much nicer if we had just spent the extra money to built the Expo Line to serve Upper New Westminster in the 80s. Of course, if the costs for that would have made the Expo Line unfeasible, don't do it. But having it go that alternate route would have been killing two birds with one stone - a Vancouver to Surrey train, and a Upper New West to New Westminster train. Forty years on, and Upper New West still doesn't have skytrain access, except by transferring by bus, and won't for decades because it doesn't warrant one in isolation. However, it could have warranted one if I was part of the Expo Line network.

[waves]

There are a number of possibilities for Willingdon alignments that do not require a bored túnnel. I take issue with the presumption that a Willingdon alignment is "billions" more than an above ground highway to Gilmore alignment.

The second issue I have is the assertion that a station on stilts 30m in the sky is somehow equivilant to a station 30m underground. These are two completely different engineering problems and not a reasonable comparison. There are certainly examples of the guideway being high as has mentioned but not a full fledged 100m long station building. There is simply no equivilant station structure in the entire Skytrain network located so high off the ground. For the option of a station directly west of Gilmore it would still need to be exceptionally high as the track still needs to go over the guideway. North South along Gilmore is also a more expensive alignment than Willingdon with steeper grades and complex expensive utilities under the street.

With the available SE corner of Willingdon and Lougheed, the ample space along Willingdon for cut and cover, and the option to be above grade along the south shore as shown in my original post (meaning no expensive bored tunnels), I am unconvinced that Gilmore is a more reasonable or even cheaper option for the interchange.

[chowhou]

We're soundly in transit fantasy territory now, and I definitely share in the blame. Probably should move it over.

[jollyburger]

Hopefully they can start zoning and buying out properties once they settle on a routing.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Hopefully they can start zoning and buying out properties once they settle on a routing.

It looks like Burnaby has been doing so.

The city notes it wants to "protect this site" at Willingdon Avenue and Hastings Street for a potential future rapid transit "Purple Line" which would run from West Vancouver's Park Royal Mall and eventually run east along Hastings, turn south at Willingdon Avenue until Metrotown. The line is proposed, but not yet funded and "at this time the technology of the proposed line is unknown," according to the public hearing report. Council has directed staff to acquire the 4472 Hastings St. property, but staff will continue to work with the site developer as negotiations are underway.

Going by recently, I saw a sign saving the property has been sold, but I couldn't find to how, although 90% chance it was to the City.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...august-7441706

Even then, how would a station on the corner there work if it's curving there? Perhaps if they cut and cover along Albert instead of Hastings.

EDIT: It looks like on Google streetview, the sold sign has been up for years.

[madog222]

That lot is still privately owned.

They would probably need the entire block including the Safeway/BCLiquor and BMO sites. Build the line cutting horizontally across the site like Gilmore Station.

[BaddieB]

You know what Chowhou, when I found out that the Ontario Line was going to cost $27B dollars, or $1.7B per km, that immediately made me think that having the Inlet Line go down Willingdon to Hastings, probably underground, is a bad idea. Since we're in a climate where it seems we can't build a transit project without it costing 1% of our national GDP, I think having it go elevated along Hwy 1, interchanging at Gilmore, isn't the end of the world. It has a benefit of being able to connect to the Millennium Line so that the lines are connected for operational services. They can share OMCs that way.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

You know what Chowhou, when I found out that the Ontario Line was going to cost $27B dollars, or $1.7B per km, that immediately made me think that having the Inlet Line go down Willingdon to Hastings, probably underground, is a bad idea. Since we're in a climate where it seems we can't build a transit project without it costing 1% of our national GDP, I think having it go elevated along Hwy 1, interchanging at Gilmore, isn't the end of the world. It has a benefit of being able to connect to the Millennium Line so that the lines are connected for operational services. They can share OMCs that way.

Welcome to the dark side of cost-benefit value engineering!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Burnaby Heights should be ecstatic at remaining transit-free for the next 20+ years.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

... Since we're in a climate where it seems we can't build a transit project without it costing 1% of our national GDP...

I'd argue that it's mostly an Ontario problem - due to QC-Windsor's importance, TTC and Metrolinx don't need to manage their money and can blow ten Broadway extensions' worth of budget on a single line (or flip-flop between subways and at-grade rail for a decade, or have it cancelled and rebooted twice, or truncate it early and have it become a streetcar for the last stretch) because they're too big to fail and so are guaranteed infinite blank cheques in perpetuity... whereas TransLink has to be more resourceful and so could likely make $27 billion pay for all of Transport 2050.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

You know what Chowhou, when I found out that the Ontario Line was going to cost $27B dollars, or $1.7B per km, that immediately made me think that having the Inlet Line go down Willingdon to Hastings, probably underground, is a bad idea. Since we're in a climate where it seems we can't build a transit project without it costing 1% of our national GDP, I think having it go elevated along Hwy 1, interchanging at Gilmore, isn't the end of the world. It has a benefit of being able to connect to the Millennium Line so that the lines are connected for operational services. They can share OMCs that way.

That $27B figure includes operating and maintenance costs for 30 years. It's not purely CAPEX.

This is the major problem with P3 projects, is that the operator requires guaranteed profit for the full term of the project. Typically a profit needs to be a minimum of 10% for it to be worth it, likely higher in this interest rate environment. Let's assume 20%, nothing out of the ordinary, which would amount to $5.4B of that being in guaranteed profit for the P3 partners alone.

Again, there's likely approximately FIVE BILLION DOLLARS of that cost in GUARANTEED PROFIT alone. That's why P3 deals are terrible.

Ontario's Auditor General in 2014, estimated that P3 deals cost the province over $8 billion dollars by that point in time. That figure is likely well in to the double, if not triple, digits by now.

With a Translink owned and operated line, any profit made would be applied to the general budget and used to fund other services. We can get much better value for transit as long as we don't stupidly do P3 again like the Canada Line (which we're still paying SNC Lavalin a tidy profit on).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Burnaby Heights should be ecstatic at remaining transit-free for the next 20+ years.



I'd argue that it's mostly an Ontario problem - due to QC-Windsor's importance, TTC and Metrolinx don't need to manage their money and can blow ten Broadway extensions' worth of budget on a single line (or flip-flop between subways and at-grade rail for a decade, or have it cancelled and rebooted twice, or truncate it early and have it become a streetcar for the last stretch) because they're too big to fail and so are guaranteed infinite blank cheques in perpetuity... whereas TransLink has to be more resourceful and so could likely make $27 billion pay for all of Transport 2050.

if we got the money that the east gets, man we would have infrastructure galore.

but alas, we must beg for scraps from the feds since we're from the west. we are just one big piggy bank for the east.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if we got the money that the east gets, man we would have infrastructure galore.

If we had the population that the east has then we'd really need infrastructure galore, and we'd probably get the money for it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's not just population - otherwise we'd be entitled to receive 1/3rd of the $27 billion (Ontario Line) + $13 billion (Eglinton) + $16.2 billion (GO expansion) + $4.6 billion (Hurontario) + $2.5 billion (Finch West) + $3 billion (Hamilton LRT, etc etc) Ontario spends on train projects alone. Needless to say, we don't.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's not just population - otherwise we'd be entitled to receive 1/3rd of the $27 billion (Ontario Line) + $13 billion (Eglinton) + $16.2 billion (GO expansion) + $4.6 billion (Hurontario) + $2.5 billion (Finch West) + $3 billion (Hamilton LRT, etc etc) Ontario spends on train projects alone. Needless to say, we don't.

Yes, but no. The Federal funding contribution for the Ontario, Eglinton, Younge North and Scarborough lines is $10.4 bn, so they aren't paying up as much for some more expensive projects. On the other hand the $3.4bn Hamilton LRT they're covering 50%, with the province the other half.

You'd have to create a spreadsheet of Federal funding on transit over time by Province to see how 'fair' any allocations have been.

Obviously we don't have an existing network of non-electric trains to electrify like GO, so some expenditure is going to be legitimately more, where the goal is carbon reduction and lower cost operations.