Transit Fantasies

[Migrant_Coconut]

Heh, I guess I'm an authority on SkyTrain shadowing now. Lougheed might be wide enough for passing loops, but Grandview probably isn't, and that's where we'd need them most.

TransLink'd also need to make sure that express service doesn't mess with regular service - again, the big selling point of SkyTrain over larger subways is how several smaller, more frequent trains are just as good as one big infrequent one, so take that away and we end up in a Master of None situation.

[cganuelas1995]

Let's just replace the tracks and trains with conveyor belts

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Other than the Scott Road and a N-S Willingdon connector, I'm not a fan of any of the current Rapidbus proposals.

None of the RapidBuses are anywhere close to 'rapid'. They're still mostly fancy express buses.


Because we don't have a KGB-104th line. All the routes in Surrey are designed to funnel into Skytrain (as in most of the Suburbs), so they all go North-South.

Langley Skytrain will help things, but only a bit.

Also, there are limited East-West road connections in Surrey in general.
Not 100% sure why, but the Surrey East-West Arterial road grid has a lot of breaks.
We need complete road connections across 92nd and 80th Avenues across Surrey to be built.


Also, all the buses transfer onto Skytrain instead of using the Pautello. Once that happens, you could extend some of the buses (like R-6/Scott Road) to Sapperton Station or Southlands (if it was built).

Well the RapidBuses are basically express buses - they'd have to be turned into BRT to become more 'rapid'. There are plans to do that but lets see how car drivers react to losing a lane to buses...

All the routes were designed to funnel people into downtown Van well before there was Skytrain - now they just funnel to Skytrain to do the same thing. It was only after TransLink took over planning from Victoria that there's been any consideration that people might want to travel anywhere else.

Also the reason they don't have many buses travel across the Pattullo anymore is because it was a slog whenever there was any kind of traffic (like about half of the day) and during rush hour they would crawl. With the Skytrain and it's dedicated route / bridge the line moves at the same speed no matter what time of day it is.

The Surrey road grid isn't as bad as some people make out. The limited number of roads through the ALR is a traffic problem (but considering it's ALR not unexpected). If you consider from Scott Rd to either 152nd, Fraser Hwy or 160th St (depending on where development ends and the ALR begins) down to 56th Ave / Hwy 10, then there aren't that many roads that need to be majorly punched through. My wish for that would be 84th Ave (which they're working on) and 60th Ave between 152nd and 168th. Honestly the bigger problem is underbuilt roads - which they're working on.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

which AFAIK CN doesn't do with Pacific

I believe Via owns the rail yard out of Pacific Central up to just east of Chess/Begg street.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Well the RapidBuses are basically express buses - they'd have to be turned into BRT to become more 'rapid'. There are plans to do that but lets see how car drivers react to losing a lane to buses...

All the routes were designed to funnel people into downtown Van well before there was Skytrain - now they just funnel to Skytrain to do the same thing. It was only after TransLink took over planning from Victoria that there's been any consideration that people might want to travel anywhere else.

Also the reason they don't have many buses travel across the Pattullo anymore is because it was a slog whenever there was any kind of traffic (like about half of the day) and during rush hour they would crawl. With the Skytrain and it's dedicated route / bridge the line moves at the same speed no matter what time of day it is.

The Surrey road grid isn't as bad as some people make out. The limited number of roads through the ALR is a traffic problem (but considering it's ALR not unexpected). If you consider from Scott Rd to either 152nd, Fraser Hwy or 160th St (depending on where development ends and the ALR begins) down to 56th Ave / Hwy 10, then there aren't that many roads that need to be majorly punched through. My wish for that would be 84th Ave (which they're working on) and 60th Ave between 152nd and 168th. Honestly the bigger problem is underbuilt roads - which they're working on.

I seem to recall LRT was canned because Surrey drivers were pissed at losing a lane on KGB and 104th.

It's already a problem in Langley City where 1 lane on 203rd is 1 lane when it was originally designed with 2, creating a bottleneck at Logan Avenue.

There's space for an extra lane (especially if you get rid of bike lanes and parking spaces- also, the post-2000s developments outside Downtown have a tendency to create very wide sidewalks)- but this would cost money.

Which is why I would rather see TransLink focus on the existing B-Lines rather than build a bunch everywhere.

R-1 has so few riders they have to use regular buses instead of the arterials a lot of the time to maintain frequencies. That should be a warning.

TransLink is falling into the same trap that screwed the original B-Lines that they wanted to avoid with RapidBus.

---
Well, they have that extra 2 lanes built into the Pautullo's design...

The context was Expo crowding. Yeah- right now, it makes more sense to terminate at Surrey Central and Scott Road, but if the Expo starts to get full, you'd want to funnel more people onto other routes other than the Expo.

Surrey also has the problem that 104th has to take all the East-West traffic on and off the freeway. Would be nice to have a Westbound connector to 108th, at least.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Depends on execution. I'd suggest that having one from above the HandyDart depot to above the east side of the platform would only impact the utility station.

Another big part of why Waterfront Hub doesn't work is that CP keeps storing crude and other hazmats (which AFAIK CN doesn't do with Pacific), something you don't want under a major pedestrian nexus with office towers; if it were just money, then sure, Waterfront would more easily pay for itself in CACs, but there's other things to consider. There's also future port expansion, which IIRC was part of why the Whitecaps stadium didn't go through.

I'm thinking the tracks would be on a viaduct too. Not saying it'll be cheap or easy, but there's definitely a lot of free airspace one floor up.

Didn't even think about that - yeah, if this goes ahead, it shouldn't be that much harder to have a sheltered crosswalk from the terminal across National to the hospital.

---

Okay, I'm seeing minimal capacity at 15k, and hypothetical capacity at 25k. And IIRC the Expo's one limiting factor is the Waterfront switch, which can do up to 75 second frequencies, not 120.

Keep in mind how a big part of why Granville-Metrotown is so busy - and why the Millennium isn't relieving the Expo - is the big gap between VCC and City Hall (i.e. you have to transfer and go downtown to reach the Canada Line); we'll see for sure in 2026, but there's a high chance that Commercial-Granville volumes will shrink once there's a better way to get to South Van and Richmond.

The merits of Y-junctions aside, my problem is that Columbia is a two-transfer solution for Surrey-Coquitlam, as well as a detour. A Newton-Guildford-Coquitlam line would be neither.

The entire jump of users from people transferring from Millennium to Expo is ~1500-2000 pphpd.
~3000-3500 pphpd comes from Waterfront Station to Expo.

Assuming 50% of people are just transferring, you're probably looking at a relief of ~3000 pphpd from Broadway. Not nothing, but not enough to make a big dent.

Canada is also capacity-limited as well, so even if Broadway was a magic bullet, it'd just create another set of capacity problems.


Pretty sure that graph has a 75s headway for the trains...

The MKIIIs are more efficient than the MKIIs (~5%+), plus you might be able to get to 60s (the extra 15s is done to allow trains to catch up on delays, but may be compensated for with more powerful engines at the cost of a worse ride.)
Also, you can go to a full side-seating configuration (another 5-10%, if I remember correctly).


BTW, side note, but what do the side cabinets do on Skytrain? The cabinets next to each of the inter-car tunnels.





Whitecaps got the go-ahead from CP for using the airspace though. It fell apart for reasons unrelated to the hazardous materials.

The north side of the station is less than half the size of the southern one. Not sure if they'd be enough space.
You'd be building everything on airspace, ruining all economic arguments (not just connectivity) for Pac Central over Waterfront. At that point, just build on Waterfront.

Unless CP wants a new railyard in the flats (or you want to consolidate everything at Waterfront), no one's in any rush to get rid of Pac Central just because the HSR station doesn't terminate there.

There's still VIA to Alberta (as well as possibly to Interior BC) and the buses (which are unlikely to be put in Waterfront due to how much more difficult it is to get out from there.)


Future Port Expansion also would likely be further east on Burrard Inlet (Waterfront tracks aren't very useful that far vs the False Creek tracks or any new railyard built as part of it) or by filling in the space between CRAB Park and Centerm (unlikely unless SeaBus is killed, as it'd mean boats would dock and block SeaBus from leaving port).
There's simply no other space on the South Shore of Burrard Inlet.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Whitecaps got the go-ahead from CP for using the airspace though. It fell apart for reasons unrelated to the hazardous materials.

The owner of the land where the tracks sit was also the owner of the Whitecaps. CP sold him the land (and took a leaseback arrangement to retain the use of the tracks). The storage of hazardous materials remained unresolved, and was a major part in the decision to abandon the stadium. It's also why nothing else has happened in terms of building over the tracks. CP didn't agree to stop the practice of parking hazardous goods, and it would appear that the developer of the stadium hadn't taken that into account.

Another problem was the space required to evacuate the stadium if there was a major incident. There wasn't really enough space to do that safely, and the Port weren't going to make any of their land on the north side available.

Originally Posted by fredinno

There's still VIA to Alberta (as well as possibly to Interior BC) and the buses (which are unlikely to be put in Waterfront due to how much more difficult it is to get out from there.)

The bus station and the land to the west of the station tracks is owned by a property company, and isn't part of the station ownership.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Pac Central doesn't either. That parking lot on the north side is difficult for trains to access due to being behind the service station.

It's hard to access from Richmond, who have to go backwards on Expo on the busiest section of the line.
Also, any Hastings or North Shore Line will most likely have a terminus at Waterfront. Pacific Central is only accessible from Expo, and funneling more passengers into the busiest section of the Expo is not smart.

I still think there's a lot more wiggle room to expand the tracks and platforms at PCS than Waterfront. If you build HSR tracks on top of existing tracks at Waterfront commuters will need to go way up and then way down to access the Seabus. Or if you try to pry space out of CP's hands at Waterfront, good luck.

Meanwhile Translink owns a significant chunk of real estate to the south of the PCS tracks and would likely have a lot easier of a time buying up a couple car dealerships than negotiating with CP.

As for overcrowding on the Expo I am not too concerned. We're talking about one or two trains arriving and departing per hour, so HSR will not generate nearly the number of passengers for Expo as YVR does for Canada. The overcrowding is also only an issue for an hour or so in the mornings and the afternoon, and only in one direction. So we're probably looking at one in-bound and one out-bound train affecting Expo capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

Originally Posted by Helvetia

Would it be feasible to route the HSR into a tunnel near Pacific Central and then join up with the Hastings Line tunnel to Waterfront? Double-track HSR on the bottom, double-track Hastings Line on top. Would be $$$ but any plan to bring HSR to Waterfront would be.

Is it really a good idea to have Seabus, Canada Line, Expo Line, a future Hastings/North Shore line, and HSR all terminating at the same place? That would be very convenient for transfers but I think the station would be severely overcrowded without a massive above- or under-ground expansion. I think there are plenty of examples in other countries where the major inter-city train station is not the same as the main metro transportation hub.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I would point out that doing so would destroy a good chunk of Thornton Park.

This is also why ending an HSR in Surrey is dumb. All it does is funnel more users onto the Expo (also, no one wants to start a Vacation in Vancouver at Surrey.)

You're saying the pedestrian overpass between PCS and Main Street would destroy the park? I don't see why, since an overpass from the south-west corner of PCS to the east end of Main Street would only encroach on a little sliver of park space.

I think everyone (including those proposing it) understands that running HSR to Vancouver is better, but that terminating in Surrey would be much cheaper. I would be very surprised if a project of this magnitude would actually be built with such a half-measure.

Originally Posted by fredinno

None of the RapidBuses are anywhere close to 'rapid'. They're still mostly fancy express buses.

No. And I live here. That's dumb. a 200 St Skytrain to Langley City and Maple Ridge is far more useful.

Most 'relief lines' would only work if they're time-competitive with Expo.
Technically, Millennium is an alt-route for Expo, but no one uses it that way.

As Sheba pointed out, RapidBus just means express bus. A true BRT system will need a different name.

The lines I suggested SoF do not eliminate building a line down 200 St. Someone from Carvolth would not take a line south to Langley and then west to Surrey. Instead they would just drive straight down the TCH. A line directly from Surrey to the north township would actually get some people to change their mode, but this is all fantasy so let's build all the damn lines.

The problem with a Expo relief line is that there isn't reliable density parallel to Expo. In Manhattan where there are several lines running parallel with another line only a couple blocks away, you not only have capacity issues but there are actually significant destinations on all the lines. The Expo line already kind of hits all big destinations outside of DT. Since Expo is the direct connection for residents in Surrey, New West, south Burnaby, and soon to be Langley to DT Vancouver, you would need a similarly direct line to draw passengers off of the Expo.

Although the Broadway line will only take a few thousand people off of the Expo at Commercial, I am very interested in how many people would get off at Metrotown if the North Shore line is built. I know several people who work in Lonsdale but live in Surrey and take the Expo all the way downtown to get on the 240 bus.

I think rather than relief lines Translink will need to build alternative connections. 41/49 would take a ton of UBC-bound SoF riders off at Metrotown. North Shore as mentioned above would also take care of Lonsdale and CapU riders. And if more office space is added in the various Town Centres maybe the Expo at its absolutely max capacity will be sufficient without express services or a relief line.

[Helvetia]

Originally Posted by fredinno

BTW, side note, but what do the side cabinets do on Skytrain? The cabinets next to each of the inter-car tunnels.

They contain various electronics. You can see something similar in this video at 1:50.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Is it really a good idea to have Seabus, Canada Line, Expo Line, a future Hastings/North Shore line, and HSR all terminating at the same place? That would be very convenient for transfers but I think the station would be severely overcrowded without a massive above- or under-ground expansion. I think there are plenty of examples in other countries where the major inter-city train station is not the same as the main metro transportation hub.

Yes, given that for most people the HSR is a "once in a while" trip the extra distance should not be an issue. YVR being several transfers from the North Shore does not discourage me from using transit. It also avoids the potential for an incident (such as that recent fire near Waterfront) shutting down multiple services all at once.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Although the Broadway line will only take a few thousand people off of the Expo at Commercial, I am very interested in how many people would get off at Metrotown if the North Shore line is built. I know several people who work in Lonsdale but live in Surrey and take the Expo all the way downtown to get on the 240 bus.

That's a long haul - how much time do they spend commuting?

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I think rather than relief lines Translink will need to build alternative connections. 41/49 would take a ton of UBC-bound SoF riders off at Metrotown. North Shore as mentioned above would also take care of Lonsdale and CapU riders. And if more office space is added in the various Town Centres maybe the Expo at its absolutely max capacity will be sufficient without express services or a relief line.

41/49 would also help the Canada Line by removing a substantial portion of the UBC-bound passengers from Richmond and southern Vancouver. Lines like these that better distribute the passenger flow would really help maximize capacity. Even if Expo does approach overload, it may be possible to selectively apply smaller-scale expansions - such as station bypasses and extra platforms for express/shuttle stops - on the innermost portion of the line from Metrotown or Broadway to Waterfront.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Yes, given that for most people the HSR is a "once in a while" trip the extra distance should not be an issue. YVR being several transfers from the North Shore does not discourage me from using transit. It also avoids the potential for an incident (such as that recent fire near Waterfront) shutting down multiple services all at once.

That's a long haul - how much time do they spend commuting?

And like it or not, plenty of in- and out-bound HSR passengers will hop in an Uber or taxi when they arrive or depart and PCS being so close to Prior, Terminal, Georgia, and Kingsway will be far better for traffic management compared to Waterfront.

A women who works at my daughter's daycare does bus in Surry, Expo line to Burrard, then bus to North Van. I do not know her exact door-to-door time but I imagine it's roughly 90 minutes each way: 40 minutes Surrey to Burrard via Skytrain, 20 minutes from Burrard to the stop in North Van, plus the Surrey bus and however long she waits for the busses and train.

And I really don't think her story is all that rare among service workers and people who live in multi-generational homes. For people who don't have the luxury of WFH and can't afford to drive and park in the town centre where they work, it's a long commute from SoF to their workplace.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

... The entire jump of users from people transferring from Millennium to Expo is ~1500-2000 pphpd.
~3000-3500 pphpd comes from Waterfront Station to Expo.

Assuming 50% of people are just transferring, you're probably looking at a relief of ~3000 pphpd from Broadway. Not nothing, but not enough to make a big dent.

Canada is also capacity-limited as well, so even if Broadway was a magic bullet, it'd just create another set of capacity problems.


Pretty sure that graph has a 75s headway for the trains...

The MKIIIs are more efficient than the MKIIs (~5%+), plus you might be able to get to 60s (the extra 15s is done to allow trains to catch up on delays, but may be compensated for with more powerful engines at the cost of a worse ride.)
Also, you can go to a full side-seating configuration (another 5-10%, if I remember correctly)...

... Whitecaps got the go-ahead from CP for using the airspace though. It fell apart for reasons unrelated to the hazardous materials.

The north side of the station is less than half the size of the southern one. Not sure if they'd be enough space.
You'd be building everything on airspace, ruining all economic arguments (not just connectivity) for Pac Central over Waterfront. At that point, just build on Waterfront.

Unless CP wants a new railyard in the flats (or you want to consolidate everything at Waterfront), no one's in any rush to get rid of Pac Central just because the HSR station doesn't terminate there.

There's still VIA to Alberta (as well as possibly to Interior BC) and the buses (which are unlikely to be put in Waterfront due to how much more difficult it is to get out from there.)...

The Cascadia HSR’s pegged at roughly 5,700 people/day in 2035 and 9,000 in 2055. Split that over ~18 hours of daily service, and that’s definitely less than 1,000 pphpd, which in turn means a lot more unused capacity for downtown’s Expo (NEFC will probably fill that back up eventually, but by then capacity’ll have likely jumped from 10k/hr to something higher). And Broadway-City Hall is being renovated specifically to handle thousands of Canada-Millennium transfers every hour, so no problem there either... the Canada is only at maybe 50% capacity itself.

I believe you were the one talking about two-minute maximum headways - one or both of us clearly miscommunicated something, let’s maybe drop it. WRT side-seating, I believe I've argued before that legroom eats that space back up, but that's neither here nor there.

CC just explained above how the railway hazmats weren’t actually resolved, and how it’s a major part of why the deal failed. A Waterfront terminus would require its concourse, security clearance et al to be built on airspace too (tracks are optional), so you’re not saving much over Pacific; the HSR being greenlit at all would mean a fairly large blank cheque for the stations and therefore both options and/or a King George station being on the table.

Yup, so my suggestion is to build on top of VIA and the buses instead of displacing them.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I seem to recall LRT was canned because Surrey drivers were pissed at losing a lane on KGB and 104th.

The LRT wasn't going to have it's own lane - at best it would get a curb and it's wishful thinking if you think that would keep SOVs out of there. Also transit riders were pissed as the LRT would actually take a couple mins longer than a bus.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I think rather than relief lines Translink will need to build alternative connections. 41/49 would take a ton of UBC-bound SoF riders off at Metrotown. North Shore as mentioned above would also take care of Lonsdale and CapU riders. And if more office space is added in the various Town Centres maybe the Expo at its absolutely max capacity will be sufficient without express services or a relief line.

Very much this.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The downside being that 41st and North shore would both converge on Metrotown Station - it wasn't conceived as an interchange, so TransLink needs to reconceive it sometime between now and 2040 before we end up with a nasty crowding problem.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The downside being that 41st and North shore would both converge on Metrotown Station - it wasn't conceived as an interchange, so TransLink needs to reconceive it sometime between now and 2040 before we end up with a nasty crowding problem.

Also, the First Narrows and '3rd Crossing/old Downtown Freeway route' ones were the preferred options in the conclusion of the Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Study. (The latter suffered from not being directly connected to a transit hub at the North Shore, but realistically, it would have to be connected to either Park Royal or Lonsdale Quay if constructed.

Only 1 of the options starts outside Waterfront, and due to its length, would likely delay NS Skytrain more than those municipalities would like.

Originally Posted by Sheba

The LRT wasn't going to have it's own lane - at best it would get a curb and it's wishful thinking if you think that would keep SOVs out of there. Also transit riders were pissed as the LRT would actually take a couple mins longer than a bus.

None of the depictions of Surrey LRT showed that. They were all center-platform or pushed all to 1 side of the road.

https://web.archive.org/web/201809111916...ntal%20and%20Socio-Economic%20Review.pdf

Accommodating the LRT along 104 Avenue between the Guildford terminus and King George
Boulevard will require a reduction of the number of general purpose traffic lanes from four to two.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Cascadia HSR’s pegged at roughly 5,700 people/day in 2035 and 9,000 in 2055. Split that over ~18 hours of daily service, and that’s definitely less than 1,000 pphpd, which in turn means a lot more unused capacity for downtown’s Expo (NEFC will probably fill that back up eventually, but by then capacity’ll have likely jumped from 10k/hr to something higher). And Broadway-City Hall is being renovated specifically to handle thousands of Canada-Millennium transfers every hour, so no problem there either... the Canada is only at maybe 50% capacity itself.

I believe you were the one talking about two-minute maximum headways - one or both of us clearly miscommunicated something, let’s maybe drop it. WRT side-seating, I believe I've argued before that legroom eats that space back up, but that's neither here nor there.

CC just explained above how the railway hazmats weren’t actually resolved, and how it’s a major part of why the deal failed. A Waterfront terminus would require its concourse, security clearance et al to be built on airspace too (tracks are optional), so you’re not saving much over Pacific; the HSR being greenlit at all would mean a fairly large blank cheque for the stations and therefore both options and/or a King George station being on the table.

Yup, so my suggestion is to build on top of VIA and the buses instead of displacing them.

Side-seating producing more space is pretty much standard knowledge in the industry.
A crowded train will cause people to tuck their legs in, and side-seating has more seating than single-seating.

Canada is only at maybe 50% capacity itself.

And so is Expo... which proves my point.
Millennium doesn't even get close to that.

I mean, I seem to recall people wanting to use the HSR tracks for regional service... especially a direct connection to Surrey.

Also, do you have a source for the 5,700 people/day?

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

And like it or not, plenty of in- and out-bound HSR passengers will hop in an Uber or taxi when they arrive or depart and PCS being so close to Prior, Terminal, Georgia, and Kingsway will be far better for traffic management compared to Waterfront.

A women who works at my daughter's daycare does bus in Surry, Expo line to Burrard, then bus to North Van. I do not know her exact door-to-door time but I imagine it's roughly 90 minutes each way: 40 minutes Surrey to Burrard via Skytrain, 20 minutes from Burrard to the stop in North Van, plus the Surrey bus and however long she waits for the busses and train.

And I really don't think her story is all that rare among service workers and people who live in multi-generational homes. For people who don't have the luxury of WFH and can't afford to drive and park in the town centre where they work, it's a long commute from SoF to their workplace.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Yes, given that for most people the HSR is a "once in a while" trip the extra distance should not be an issue. YVR being several transfers from the North Shore does not discourage me from using transit. It also avoids the potential for an incident (such as that recent fire near Waterfront) shutting down multiple services all at once.



That's a long haul - how much time do they spend commuting?



41/49 would also help the Canada Line by removing a substantial portion of the UBC-bound passengers from Richmond and southern Vancouver. Lines like these that better distribute the passenger flow would really help maximize capacity. Even if Expo does approach overload, it may be possible to selectively apply smaller-scale expansions - such as station bypasses and extra platforms for express/shuttle stops - on the innermost portion of the line from Metrotown or Broadway to Waterfront.

Originally Posted by Helvetia

They contain various electronics. You can see something similar in this video at 1:50.

So that's another seat on every car, or about 1% capacity improvement, if they get rid of it, which may be possible due to the space at the front and back of the trains.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I still think there's a lot more wiggle room to expand the tracks and platforms at PCS than Waterfront. If you build HSR tracks on top of existing tracks at Waterfront commuters will need to go way up and then way down to access the Seabus. Or if you try to pry space out of CP's hands at Waterfront, good luck.

As for overcrowding on the Expo I am not too concerned. We're talking about one or two trains arriving and departing per hour, so HSR will not generate nearly the number of passengers for Expo as YVR does for Canada. The overcrowding is also only an issue for an hour or so in the mornings and the afternoon, and only in one direction. So we're probably looking at one in-bound and one out-bound train affecting Expo capacity during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

TransLink doesn't want to have pass-ups and crowding. That would be around 2060-ish at current growth rates.

Seabus is assumed to remain, but is unlikely to survive.
As I pointed out earlier, the Port would likely want the space in front of CRAB and Seabus to expand Centerm (especially considering how difficult it is to expand the Roberts Bank Ports) and CP to expand the rail yards near the ports.

Also, the 3A crossing is faster than Seabus to Lonsdale, even accounting for transfer times.

The only SeaBus that'll likely be at Waterfront in 30 years is one that's a museum.

Is it really a good idea to have Seabus, Canada Line, Expo Line, a future Hastings/North Shore line, and HSR all terminating at the same place? That would be very convenient for transfers but I think the station would be severely overcrowded without a massive above- or under-ground expansion. I think there are plenty of examples in other countries where the major inter-city train station is not the same as the main metro transportation hub.

Hence, the Waterfront Station Hub concept.

You're saying the pedestrian overpass between PCS and Main Street would destroy the park? I don't see why, since an overpass from the south-west corner of PCS to the east end of Main Street would only encroach on a little sliver of park space.

I think everyone (including those proposing it) understands that running HSR to Vancouver is better, but that terminating in Surrey would be much cheaper. I would be very surprised if a project of this magnitude would actually be built with such a half-measure.



As Sheba pointed out, RapidBus just means express bus. A true BRT system will need a different name.

The lines I suggested SoF do not eliminate building a line down 200 St. Someone from Carvolth would not take a line south to Langley and then west to Surrey. Instead they would just drive straight down the TCH. A line directly from Surrey to the north township would actually get some people to change their mode, but this is all fantasy so let's build all the damn lines.

No, I'm saying that building on Pac Central would either be more expensive than Waterfront, accounting for redevelopment potential, or need to destroy the park.

Translink intended RapidBus to be better service than the B-Lines as part of the rebrand. It's not.
Every line should be at least at the standard of the 98B.

The B-Lines can't take local buses as a spine of any transit network because it simply sucks.
And now TransLink wants to add Rapidbus to Brookswood. Why.


Why not just expand 555 service then, as I suggested earlier? That does what you want without resorting to SkyTrain.

The problem with a Expo relief line is that there isn't reliable density parallel to Expo. In Manhattan where there are several lines running parallel with another line only a couple blocks away, you not only have capacity issues but there are actually significant destinations on all the lines. The Expo line already kind of hits all big destinations outside of DT. Since Expo is the direct connection for residents in Surrey, New West, south Burnaby, and soon to be Langley to DT Vancouver, you would need a similarly direct line to draw passengers off of the Expo.

Although the Broadway line will only take a few thousand people off of the Expo at Commercial, I am very interested in how many people would get off at Metrotown if the North Shore line is built. I know several people who work in Lonsdale but live in Surrey and take the Expo all the way downtown to get on the 240 bus.

I think rather than relief lines Translink will need to build alternative connections. 41/49 would take a ton of UBC-bound SoF riders off at Metrotown. North Shore as mentioned above would also take care of Lonsdale and CapU riders. And if more office space is added in the various Town Centres maybe the Expo at its absolutely max capacity will be sufficient without express services or a relief line.

There IS Uptown New Westminster and BCIT parallel to the Expo.

They should expand 555 service to Phibbs. That was also an option in the Expo relief line report, BTW.

The issue is that Expo is a diagonal line, while 41/49 is a East-West line.

Arbutus or Victoria could work as reliefs for the Canada, but not Millennium, because they don't even head in the same overall direction.

Originally Posted by Changing City

The owner of the land where the tracks sit was also the owner of the Whitecaps. CP sold him the land (and took a leaseback arrangement to retain the use of the tracks). The storage of hazardous materials remained unresolved, and was a major part in the decision to abandon the stadium. It's also why nothing else has happened in terms of building over the tracks. CP didn't agree to stop the practice of parking hazardous goods, and it would appear that the developer of the stadium hadn't taken that into account.

Another problem was the space required to evacuate the stadium if there was a major incident. There wasn't really enough space to do that safely, and the Port weren't going to make any of their land on the north side available.



The bus station and the land to the west of the station tracks is owned by a property company, and isn't part of the station ownership.

Why the hell did they sell the land to someone who wanted to use the airspace if they had no intention of allowing the use of the airspace?

In any case, CP has a rail yard right below the Centerm terminal, and the False Creek Flats yards exist, so it seems stupid they would do that, considering they have ample nearby room to store hazardous materials.

I don't think that really matters, since that interregional bus terminal isn't going anywhere.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Why the hell did they sell the land to someone who wanted to use the airspace if they had no intention of allowing the use of the airspace?

In any case, CP has a rail yard right below the Centerm terminal, and the False Creek Flats yards exist, so it seems stupid they would do that, considering they have ample nearby room to store hazardous materials.

It's not CP's problem. They got paid, and didn't have to change how they operate at all. You can see tanker cars parked up on the waterfront quite often, it's more convenient for them to use the tracks that way. Could they use other tracks? Quite possibly they could, but their operations would be less efficient.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I don't think that really matters, since that interregional bus terminal isn't going anywhere.

Who says? The remaining bus lines that use the terminal have a lease, but the owner undoubtedly bought it for redevelopment. It's moved a couple of times in the past, but it'll be less easily replaced in future. Not all the bus operators use it. Quick Shuttle to Seattle pick up kerbside.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, the First Narrows and '3rd Crossing/old Downtown Freeway route' ones were the preferred options in the conclusion of the Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit Study. (The latter suffered from not being directly connected to a transit hub at the North Shore, but realistically, it would have to be connected to either Park Royal or Lonsdale Quay if constructed.

Only 1 of the options starts outside Waterfront, and due to its length, would likely delay NS Skytrain more than those municipalities would like...

... Seabus is assumed to remain, but is unlikely to survive.
As I pointed out earlier, the Port would likely want the space in front of CRAB and Seabus to expand Centerm (especially considering how difficult it is to expand the Roberts Bank Ports) and CP to expand the rail yards near the ports.

Also, the 3A crossing is faster than Seabus to Lonsdale, even accounting for transfer times.

The only SeaBus that'll likely be at Waterfront in 30 years is one that's a museum....

Except that it's not just Lonsdale < -> downtown, it's the North Shore < -> the entire metro, which is why all the groundwork points toward a Second Narrows-Metrotown alignment. And since TransLink is also highly unlikely to scrap the ferry fleet they've been slowly accumulating over the last couple decades, we can expect any port expansion to include a new SeaBus terminal.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Side-seating producing more space is pretty much standard knowledge in the industry.
A crowded train will cause people to tuck their legs in, and side-seating has more seating than single-seating.

And so is Expo... which proves my point.
Millennium doesn't even get close to that.

I mean, I seem to recall people wanting to use the HSR tracks for regional service... especially a direct connection to Surrey.

Also, do you have a source for the 5,700 people/day?

The Cliff's Notes of the last seating study posted here basically said "marginal to the point of inconclusive" in regards to side seats or front/back ones. Six of one, half a dozen of another - there's much better ways to increase capacity.

Not sure what that point is, TBH. The Canada Line is getting those ~3,000 pphpd anyway at City Centre, where they ride to Broadway or further down; if anything, shifting the transfer to Broadway and cutting out the middleman decreases peak load by distributing the ridership and taking pressure off its busiest stretch.

People want it as an option, yes. Pacific Central also provides that option. Not sure why everything has to be at Waterfront, which can't handle that kind of crowding anyway but might if it gets a major pie-in-the-sky redevelopment which it probably won't.

Early guesswork for the HSR gave 2.1 million riders in 2035 and 3.3 million in 2055; divide by 365 days, that's 5,700/day and 9,000/day on average.

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, I'm saying that building on Pac Central would either be more expensive than Waterfront, accounting for redevelopment potential, or need to destroy the park.

OR follow the little pedestrian path in the southeast corner above the utility station, and Bob's your uncle. No park destruction save for a few square metres of grass.

Also, with Pacific, the City'd only have to build the HSR terminal; with Waterfront, it's the terminal and the bus interchange and the new road grid and the pedestrian concourses and all the utilities for the new towers... so the CACs really aren't saving us all that much money over Pacific.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except that it's not just Lonsdale < -> downtown, it's the North Shore < -> the entire metro, which is why all the groundwork points toward a Second Narrows-Metrotown alignment. And since TransLink is also highly unlikely to scrap the ferry fleet they've been slowly accumulating over the last couple decades, we can expect any port expansion to include a new SeaBus terminal.

Agreed, building SkyTrain to replace the SeaBus for lower Lonsdale travellers is not especially cost-effective given how well the existing service works. They're better off adding additional service through new routes that service other parts of the North Shore. There's also an argument to be made for the SeaBus with respect to its value to the tourism industry. Tourists like ferries, they look great in advertising and you can't argue with the price for a short harbour trip.

[jollyburger]

Do you guys think that the current commuter patterns for rapid transit will stay mostly intact in 30-40 years or are we totally missing some changes to future demand?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Do you guys think that the current commuter patterns for rapid transit will stay mostly intact in 30-40 years or are we totally missing some changes to future demand?

Probably. The demand for DT-elsewhere is lower post-pandemic, but still strong.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Agreed, building SkyTrain to replace the SeaBus for lower Lonsdale travellers is not especially cost-effective given how well the existing service works. They're better off adding additional service through new routes that service other parts of the North Shore. There's also an argument to be made for the SeaBus with respect to its value to the tourism industry. Tourists like ferries, they look great in advertising and you can't argue with the price for a short harbour trip.

1. Seabus doesn't have a outdoor deck which would make it good for tourism.
2. Seabus will probably see its demand drop by 80%+ due to a North Shore Skytrain at First Narrows/Norgate, making it uneconomical to maintain, as shown previously due to the ferry's lower speed.
3. Port Metro Van would really like to see Seabus die, as it competes for port space and traffic and cuts across the entire harbor.

If they keep a North Shore-DT ferry service, it would most likely be a new, smaller ferry.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Except that it's not just Lonsdale < -> downtown, it's the North Shore < -> the entire metro, which is why all the groundwork points toward a Second Narrows-Metrotown alignment. And since TransLink is also highly unlikely to scrap the ferry fleet they've been slowly accumulating over the last couple decades, we can expect any port expansion to include a new SeaBus terminal.



The Cliff's Notes of the last seating study posted here basically said "marginal to the point of inconclusive" in regards to side seats or front/back ones. Six of one, half a dozen of another - there's much better ways to increase capacity.

Not sure what that point is, TBH. The Canada Line is getting those ~3,000 pphpd anyway at City Centre, where they ride to Broadway or further down; if anything, shifting the transfer to Broadway and cutting out the middleman decreases peak load by distributing the ridership and taking pressure off its busiest stretch.

People want it as an option, yes. Pacific Central also provides that option. Not sure why everything has to be at Waterfront, which can't handle that kind of crowding anyway but might if it gets a major pie-in-the-sky redevelopment which it probably won't.

Early guesswork for the HSR gave 2.1 million riders in 2035 and 3.3 million in 2055; divide by 365 days, that's 5,700/day and 9,000/day on average.



OR follow the little pedestrian path in the southeast corner above the utility station, and Bob's your uncle. No park destruction save for a few square metres of grass.

Also, with Pacific, the City'd only have to build the HSR terminal; with Waterfront, it's the terminal and the bus interchange and the new road grid and the pedestrian concourses and all the utilities for the new towers... so the CACs really aren't saving us all that much money over Pacific.

Which groundwork? Other than mayoral support. I haven't been following things as much as I should.

Also, with the likely future expansion of the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, having a bus/HOV lane from Metrotown/Brentwood/Carvolth to Phibbs should be possible (as well as cheaper than Skytrain, at least on 2nd Narrows.)
That + Skytrain at Norgate-Waterfront would hit all the crossings and demand for a North Shore crossing.


I know.

Which seating study? Do you have a link? Just curious.


Pac Central isn't a good terminus for regional service.
They didn't put WCE on Pac Central, after all (even though it predates the addition of overpasses over the SRY spur to the flats, so they could just have put a wye there to get to Pac Central and share the platforms used by VIA.)

Pac Central is better if you want to take a taxi or interregional bus, though, but you may as well just use the Surrey station for that.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Agreed, building SkyTrain to replace the SeaBus for lower Lonsdale travellers is not especially cost-effective given how well the existing service works. They're better off adding additional service through new routes that service other parts of the North Shore. There's also an argument to be made for the SeaBus with respect to its value to the tourism industry. Tourists like ferries, they look great in advertising and you can't argue with the price for a short harbour trip.

At some point someone on the forum pointed out that for all the $$$ needed to build a tunnel from DT Vancouver to Lonsdale you would save minimal time compared to Seabus. Contrast that to a Second Narrows connection which would not only be more direct to North Van for the majority of lower mainland residents (draw a straight line from Surrey or Langley or Burnaby or the Tri-Cities to Lonsdale, and none of the paths pass through DT Vancouver) but would provide a huge advantage over the existing sit on a bus and wait in traffic model.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Do you guys think that the current commuter patterns for rapid transit will stay mostly intact in 30-40 years or are we totally missing some changes to future demand?

I think in absolute terms DT Vancouver won't see much of a decline in commuters but the other town centres (Surrey Central, Metrotown, Brentwood, Richmond, etc.) will see an explosion of commuters. So in relative terms DT Vancouver will decline in importance. This means that DT Vancouver may only need small capacity increases but Surrey will likely need a whole new hub-and-spoke rapid transit network similar to what Vancouver has today.