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

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It also skips all of Hastings and the M-Line (unless TransLink is willing to make a very costly retrofit to allow a station in the tunnel).

FWIW that's exactly what they did for the Burrard and Granville stations in the Dunsmuir Tunnel. It's still not happening.

[madog222]

This is getting into fantasy territory but for the sake of comparison, Granville Stn is 25m underground while the Thornton Tunnel is around 70-75m under Hastings.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

ugh. this is all fantasy talk.

also, Thorton tunnel will NEVER be used. they just triple tracked the southern portal area, and they also installed new venting to increase the frequency of trains. will never happen. its also hits like 30m deep in some parts. not ideal.

but this should all be in the transit fantasy thread people.

[ahdede]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Welcome aboard!

You're going to need another station at Burnaby Heights - it's a commercial village and major transit corridor, plus there's the PNE a few blocks due west.

I agree - this can be fulfilled by having an Expo extension or separate line run along Hastings with Boundary as a transfer station, and stations at PNE and Gilmore/Hastings as well. I'll save the details for the fantasy thread.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I thought about Boundary too but I think there's at least four serious issues with that alignment.

All fair points, it'll be interesting to see if an analysis is done on this alignment and whether these issues can be mitigated or prove to be too cumbersome. On the future growth point, I would suggest its more likely that Burnaby would allow the dealerships and auto shops along Boundary be redeveloped given the projects approved along Lougheed, whereas allowing the increased density needed to justify (eventually) rapid rail stations in the purely SFHs neighbourhoods along Gilmore would represent a seismic shift in how the city views redevelopment. The YIMBY in me would love to see this shift though!

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

ugh. this is all fantasy talk.

also, Thorton tunnel will NEVER be used. they just triple tracked the southern portal area, and they also installed new venting to increase the frequency of trains. will never happen. its also hits like 30m deep in some parts. not ideal.

but this should all be in the transit fantasy thread people.

A Second Narrows aligned rapid transit line to Metrotown has advanced to the point where it's being included in a 10 year priorities plan. Discussion on potential alignments at this point is far from 'fantasy'. I agree however the zero chance of Thornton tunnel being a possibility.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Guess it's on djmk to explain what they mean by accommodating stations on Hastings then.

scroll down to 4472 Hastings St.

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-news/th...-up-for-public-hearing-in-august-7441706

[jollyburger]

Notwithstanding the desire to negotiate the
site’s acquisition, Staff have agreed to continue to work with the applicant to
advance the subject rezoning application as negotiations are underway. The
property owner has indicated that they are prepared to cooperate with the City
and negotiate the sale of the property while the rezoning is ongoing.

https://pub-burnaby.escribemeetings.com/...enda&lang=English&Item=4&Tab=attachments

[officedweller]

Another consideration on the alignment and interchange station being at Gilmore Station is the concern that if you locate the interchange at busy Brentwood Station, you'll overload the facilities there, not to mention the underground to elevated circulation required. Using less busy Gilmore for transfers spreads the load (although it creates a need to transfer for those exiting at Brentwood Station).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, it'd be like the south terminus being at Patterson instead of Metrotown - not the end of the world, but still super inconvenient.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, it'd be like the south terminus being at Patterson instead of Metrotown - not the end of the world, but still super inconvenient.

IMO the difference between Metrotown and Patterson versus Brentwood and Gilmore is an order of magnitude higher. Metrotown is a massive source of passengers and also more importantly a massive destination for passengers. The Willingdon-Kingsway-Nelson-Imperial core of Metrotown is the largest urban centre outside Downtown Vancouver with huge amounts of commercial and office traffic. Meanwhile, Patterson is damn near in the middle of a park. Although Brentwood is "up-and-coming", it's not exactly a major destination for most people and doesn't really blow Gilmore away. Yes, there's a couple small office buildings and a slowly revitalizing mall, but Gilmore has similar office space nearby and in the next 5-10 years will have residential density rivaling Brentwood's (assuming the grand bargain holds true).

It's unlikely a huge amount of potential transit users would be inconvenienced versus those benefiting if the exchange was at Gilmore compared to Brentwood.

A lot of potential transit users would be inconvenienced if you had to transfer at Patterson to get to Metrotown, for the benefit of very few.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

IMO the difference between Metrotown and Patterson versus Brentwood and Gilmore is an order of magnitude higher. Metrotown is a massive source of passengers and also more importantly a massive destination for passengers. The Willingdon-Kingsway-Nelson-Imperial core of Metrotown is the largest urban centre outside Downtown Vancouver with huge amounts of commercial and office traffic. Meanwhile, Patterson is damn near in the middle of a park. Although Brentwood is "up-and-coming", it's not exactly a major destination for most people and doesn't really blow Gilmore away. Yes, there's a couple small office buildings and a slowly revitalizing mall, but Gilmore has similar office space nearby and in the next 5-10 years will have residential density rivaling Brentwood's (assuming the grand bargain holds true).

It's unlikely a huge amount of potential transit users would be inconvenienced versus those benefiting if the exchange was at Gilmore compared to Brentwood.

A lot of potential transit users would be inconvenienced if you had to transfer at Patterson to get to Metrotown, for the benefit of very few.

Plus Metrotown Station sits directly on the median, not floating above a roadway, and already has expanded escalator capacity, so there's more to work with.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

IMO the difference between Metrotown and Patterson versus Brentwood and Gilmore is an order of magnitude higher.

Patterson does have a park on one side (which I don't think should be discounted as a destination. It certainly does not attract as many people as Metrotown or Brentwood malls, but I know I have used the Skytrain to get to Central Park more than a few times. If you're headed to the pool, using the pitch-and-putt, or just going for a stroll it is a very useful stop.) but it also has a number of existing and under-construction residential developments in the immediate vicinity, and anyone who works in Metrotown on Kingsway east of Willingdon (RBC, various restaurants, Save-On) likely walks from Patterson and not Metrotown Station. I don't think the comparison is as wack as you're suggesting.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

IMO the difference between Metrotown and Patterson versus Brentwood and Gilmore is an order of magnitude higher. Metrotown is a massive source of passengers and also more importantly a massive destination for passengers. The Willingdon-Kingsway-Nelson-Imperial core of Metrotown is the largest urban centre outside Downtown Vancouver with huge amounts of commercial and office traffic. Meanwhile, Patterson is damn near in the middle of a park. Although Brentwood is "up-and-coming", it's not exactly a major destination for most people and doesn't really blow Gilmore away. Yes, there's a couple small office buildings and a slowly revitalizing mall, but Gilmore has similar office space nearby and in the next 5-10 years will have residential density rivaling Brentwood's (assuming the grand bargain holds true).

It's unlikely a huge amount of potential transit users would be inconvenienced versus those benefiting if the exchange was at Gilmore compared to Brentwood.

A lot of potential transit users would be inconvenienced if you had to transfer at Patterson to get to Metrotown, for the benefit of very few.

The fact it's also a bus exchange transfer spot makes it even more of a problem if you are just getting people onto the overcrowded Expo line to make that connection.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I thought about Boundary too but I think
2. The tunnel
For crossing Burnaby/Vancouver Heights it's inevitable that there will be tunneling since the elevation gain between the North Shore and the Heights is just too much for above grade construction all the way. It's not abundantly clear to me if the power line foundations make this idea less viable or not. Tunneling down Gilmore shouldn't too concerning, nothing with serious foundations along the route.

I think there's a feasible route around the west side of the hill from Gilmore station to highway 1 then following the east side of highway 1 to the second narrows. Some property acquisition would be necessary, but avoiding tunneling here would save a lot of money. There's a tight squeeze near the 1st avenue, but I think this section could be solved by putting the freeway onramp on top of a cut and cover tunnel carrying the transit line. The tunnel would be shallow and only a few hundred meters long.

This option would only require relocating one BC hydro line (along Still Creek). If the route goes north on boundary road, then a second BC hydro line need to be relocated to avoid a conflict (boundary road is a separate line).

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by scottN

I think there's a feasible route around the west side of the hill from Gilmore station to highway 1 then following the east side of highway 1 to the second narrows....

It's a good point about looking for ways to cut costs, and running alongside or over the highway is perhaps one way to do that while avoiding excessive property acquisition. However, I still think that the IWM's impending replacement will require additional planning considerations. The bridge is reported to need replacement by the mid-2060s, and while that is forty years away, when you factor in the development time for both the transit crossing and the new bridge the timeframe tightens up. Translink planners are going to need to work in conjunction with the MoT to factor in possible routes for an IWM replacement. It would be a shame to miss a chance to fix issues with the current route - such as the S-bend on the North Vancouver side - because "SkyBridge 2" is in the way...

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

It's a good point about looking for ways to cut costs, and running alongside or over the highway is perhaps one way to do that while avoiding excessive property acquisition. However, I still think that the IWM's impending replacement will require additional planning considerations. The bridge is reported to need replacement by the mid-2060s, and while that is forty years away, when you factor in the development time for both the transit crossing and the new bridge the timeframe tightens up. Translink planners are going to need to work in conjunction with the MoT to factor in possible routes for an IWM replacement. It would be a shame to miss a chance to fix issues with the current route - such as the S-bend on the North Vancouver side - because "SkyBridge 2" is in the way...

Unfortunately the S-bend is deep fried (not just baked) into the political geography of the North Shore. Seymour Creek IR 2 explicitly shapes Highway 1 into its scoliosis routing (and it will shape any other Second Narrows crossings as well.)

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately the S-bend is deep fried (not just baked) into the political geography of the North Shore. Seymour Creek IR 2 explicitly shapes Highway 1 into its scoliosis routing (and it will shape any other Second Narrows crossings as well.)

Yes, but maybe no as well? The reserve does constrain the route, but a replacement bridge will require negotiations anyway given that the IWM passes over the southern portion of that land. The Squamish people might be open to alternate routes given that it could improve the potential for developing the land underneath the existing bridge.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I highly doubt the province wants to realign the Fern interchange again. At best, the TCH shifts east right up against the substation in exchange for developable condo space beside Lynnwood and an overpass to the east half of the reserve (and that's assuming the Squamish want to negotiate in the first place).

[jollyburger]

Or just go straight up Willingdon (not turning down Hastings), stick a station somewhere near Maplewood then cut back to Phibbs Exchange.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It is called the Second "Narrows" for a reason...

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Yes, but maybe no as well? The reserve does constrain the route, but a replacement bridge will require negotiations anyway given that the IWM passes over the southern portion of that land. The Squamish people might be open to alternate routes given that it could improve the potential for developing the land underneath the existing bridge.

Don't believe everything you see online, I'm assuming you're sourcing Google Maps which is a lazy liar when it comes reserves in Canada.

You can look up the real borders of the reserve here.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It is called the Second "Narrows" for a reason...

FWIW pretty much the entirety of Burnaby Heights is the south side of the Second Narrows. Willingdon is pushing it a bit (and the refinery is going to make Willingdon crossing a non-starter), but the usable narrows pretty much span from North Skeena to North Carleton.