Transit Fantasies

[jollyburger]

Personally that seems more like a streetcar line than a full fledged Skytrain especially if it's not an extension or too short as a standalone line.

Assuming there's some kind of future light transit on the Arbutus ROW if I were going into downtown I might try to cut through more of the West End along Nelson starting somewhere closer to Denman, through the Georgia Viaducts area, to the hospital and then cut north somewhere near Clark and go east on Hastings.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Personally that seems more like a streetcar line than a full fledged Skytrain especially if it's not an extension or too short as a standalone line.

Assuming there's some kind of future light transit on the Arbutus ROW if I were going into downtown I might try to cut through more of the West End along Nelson starting somewhere closer to Denman, through the Georgia Viaducts area, to the hospital and then cut north somewhere near Clark and go east on Hastings.

Is it possible that you could do a diagram for that? (I think that an image says what 1000 words often cannot.) Also, what sort of rolling stock do you foresee? And where would it be tunneled? And at grade?
Also, when you said "to the hospital" you were listing stops in the downtown peninsula. Did you mean new St Paul's? Images help and your idea is interesting.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Personally that seems more like a streetcar line than a full fledged Skytrain especially if it's not an extension or too short as a standalone line.

Assuming there's some kind of future light transit on the Arbutus ROW if I were going into downtown I might try to cut through more of the West End along Nelson starting somewhere closer to Denman, through the Georgia Viaducts area, to the hospital and then cut north somewhere near Clark and go east on Hastings.

The intention here is, as mentioned, a western portion for a future Hastings line, which acts as a relief for UBC / west of Cambie St commuters to have a quick connection to downtown, Waterfront Station, and beyond, other than the (already in real life) congested Canada Line. In this fantasy world, this would compliment a downtown Vancouver street car network which could include the light transit you're mentioning, however this is intended to be higher order grade separated rapid transit and not street running light rail.

[chowhou]

As far as I can tell, LRT in the Lower Mainland died with the municipal career of Dianne Watts. I think it's far more likely that in the far future the Arbutus ROW gets taken over by Skytrain rather than an LRT solution.

I'm also of the opinion that, while Senakw will certainly be a dense neighbourhood, it's a little hard to justify a station at the very edge of Kitsilano.

So, I'd argue that a more likely fantasy alignment would be an above ground station at Arbutus with potential to continue south along the ROW. The elevated guideway can follow the ROW northeast all the way to the Granville Bridge where it can duck under the Fir offramp, fly over Granville, then again duck under the Hemlock onramp. There should be adequate clearance to do so and the design precedence exists on the Expo Line when it ducks underneath the Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts. The co-ops on SFC should be due/past due their lease expiry by that time so it should make sense for a tear down, a tunnel portal + South False Creek-Granville Island station to be built, and redevelopment on top. Routing through the downtown core TBD.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

As far as I can tell, LRT in the Lower Mainland died with the municipal career of Dianne Watts. I think it's far more likely that in the far future the Arbutus ROW gets taken over by Skytrain rather than an LRT solution.

Is it mainly a driver (LRT) / no driver thing (SkyTrain)?

Can you not run overhead LRT catenary wires with driver-less trains in a ROW? Or is driver-less not allowed if you cross intersections at-grade?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Is it mainly a driver (LRT) / no driver thing (SkyTrain)?

Can you not run overhead LRT catenary wires with driver-less trains in a ROW? Or is driver-less not allowed if you cross intersections at-grade?

It seems like Translink has adopted the (IMO correct) position that at-grade LRT = bus with more steps. Translink would much rather push a RapidBus/BRT down Arbutus than have an at-grade rail solution.

Regardless, considering that AFAIK every LRT system in the world has drivers, I'd say that we're definitely not getting driverless LRT here anytime soon.

[Unregistered User]

Originally Posted by mcj

Been thinking about a future downtown relief line, and what could be possible. I present to the community, my vision for the western portion of a future "Hastings Line".



Coming east from Commercial Station at Commercial and Hastings (not pictured), the line will travel approximately 650 metres to Clark - Strathcona station serving the new dense neighbourhood west of Clark Drive on the eastern boundary of the Strathcona neighbourhood. This portion is assumed to be tunneled under Hastings Street utilizing similar methods to the Broadway extension.

The line will travel approximately 1.1km from Clark - Strathcona to the Railtown - Jackson Ave station at Jackson Ave and Alexander Street. After Clark - Strathcona the line will curve into a cut and cover tunnel underneath the CN rail corridor, with double tracking of that portion of railway at the same time for the finished product. Once this portion meets the main rail lines just north of the powell street overpass, it will curve and stay in a short cut and cover trench until it meets Alexander Street, from there travelling under Alexander Street until the Railtown - Jackson Avenue station.

The line will then travel approximately 800 metres to Gastown - Carrall Street station, under Alexander Street until a transition just west of the existing Columbia Street station. This portion will require a realignment of the railyard, shifting the tracks north and removing a couple tracks for the station to fit between the Heritage buildings and the railyard. Gastown - Carrall Street station will be an at-grade station.

Approximately 600 metres from Gastown - Carrall Street station the line will connect with the Expo and Canada lines, the Seabus, and the West Coast Express at Waterfront station on a reconfigured Expo / Hastings line interchange.

From Waterfront, the line will follow the Expo Line's alignment under Cordova, on separate tracks to be build beside it before it meets the Thurlow entrance of the current Expo Line tunnels, at which point it will enter a new tunnel constructed underneath Thurlow street. Approximately 1.0 km from Waterfront the line will next stop at a station between Robson and Georgia streets on Thurlow. This station will be constructed to serve the easternmost part of the west end and provide access to the westernmost portion of the central business district for Hastings line commuters (and those connecting with the North Shore / Willingdon line).

From Robson - Georgia the line will travel approximately 650 metres to Davie Village station, which will serve the heart of Davie village and include a direct connection to the redeveloped old St. Paul's hospital, set to be a major redevelopment from Concord Pacific including the future tallest building in Vancouver (in this fantasy world).

The line will then travel underneath the inlet to False Creek from Davie Village for approximately 1.4 km to Kitsilano - Senakw station at the intersection of Burrard Street and Cornwall Avenue. This station will serve the Senakw development, as well as the wider Kitsilano area with direct integration to the redeveloped Molson Brewery.

The terminus for this line will be at a redeveloped Arbutus station, having ample room from the bus loop, which was installed as part of the first portion of the Broadway/UBC Millennium line extensions, this redeveloped station will be approximately 1.0 km from Kitsilano - Senakw station. This will act as a much needed relief line to the northern portion of the Canada Line, which by this point will be one of the busiest sections of the Skytrain network.

Provisions for an extension south along the Arbutus rail ROW will also be made, allowing a connection in Kerrisdale with the 41st/49th avenue Skytrain upon completion.

I think connecting the Hastings Line with Arbutus via Thurlow is the natural, smart, and inevitable move (replacing the 14 and probably 44 bus). I've long included such a route in my own fantasy network, but with a few changes:

1. There is a major station at Main and Hastings, and possibly stations at either somewhere like Hastings and Abbott or, my preference, Carrall and Water (a think a Gastown-themed station would just be too cool). I can't see a justification for any stations between Main and Commercial unless there is major development in EAST East Hastings.
2. More controversial: The station at Robson is shifted east enough for an unground transfer to Burrard (for an envisioned extension of the Expo Line to the North Shore with stations serving Coal Harbour and Denman). I love the idea of there being a triangle of transfer stations right at the heart of Downtown.
3. The station serving Senakw is closer to 4th and Burrard to catch all those 4th Ave bus services (4, 7, 14, 84)

[mcj]

Appreciate the constructive criticism and ideas from everyone so far!

Originally Posted by chowhou

As far as I can tell, LRT in the Lower Mainland died with the municipal career of Dianne Watts. I think it's far more likely that in the far future the Arbutus ROW gets taken over by Skytrain rather than an LRT solution.

I would like to live in a Vancouver where street-running LRT is recognized as unviable since everyone including Translink that studies it realizes it is effectively the same as a bus route, but it seems that the ghost of Dianne Watts does live on in some circles.

Originally Posted by chowhou

It seems like Translink has adopted the (IMO correct) position that at-grade LRT = bus with more steps. Translink would much rather push a RapidBus/BRT down Arbutus than have an at-grade rail solution.

Regardless, considering that AFAIK every LRT system in the world has drivers, I'd say that we're definitely not getting driverless LRT here anytime soon.

By many definitions, the Skytrain is an automated LRT system, the technology used by the Expo and Millennium lines was officially defined as "Advanced Light Rapid Transit". Though I believe you're well aware of this. Today it could probably be more accurately defined as some sort of "medium" option between light and heavy rail, although from a rolling stock perspective it's still very light rail.

And yes, Translink established that pretty clearly to Dianne Watts during her mayoral term regarding her LRT project. That Translink's preferred option from their technical and economic evaluations is exactly what is now being built, Skytrain down Fraser Highway and BRT down King George.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'm also of the opinion that, while Senakw will certainly be a dense neighbourhood, it's a little hard to justify a station at the very edge of Kitsilano.

Originally Posted by Unregistered User

3. The station serving Senakw is closer to 4th and Burrard to catch all those 4th Ave bus services (4, 7, 14, 84)

I was considering that. I think I'll do up another drawing incorporating these suggestions in the future. I was swayed to place a station at Burrard and Cornwall due to a couple of factors:

1. The first being, Senakw, with a full build out population of approximately 9000 people.
2. The second is, that it seems obvious to me that the Molson Brewery redevelopment was pulled once Senakw started getting off the ground to give some time for the growing pains to heal from the higher density bandaid being ripped off. Concord Pacific is likely to come back to the city with a significantly larger proposal than they had previously, using the density of Senakw to justify their own. The previous proposal from Concord Pacific was 3000 units on the 7.6 acre site (395 units/acre). Senakw has 6000 units on 10.8 arces (555 units/arce). I can imagine Concord will likely try to go for ~500 units/acre in their revised proposal, resulting in only those two developments housing ~15,000 people that currently do not exist at this location.
3. The third is that this will not stop with these two sites, this area of the city is highly desirable, between the Broadway plan which upzones everything south of 1st Avenue, and the redevelopment of the city owned South False Creek area, and the potential for higher densities on Kits Point (to the begrudgement of current residents, although market economics will eventually win on this), there's easily going to be a population of about 20k to 30k people within a quick walk of this station.
4. Fourth is that Kitsilano Beach is a major tourist destination, having a station nearby will ultimately serve that node in addition to the residents nearby.

I would agree though that west 4th is a draw in and of itself as a major shopping street and with multiple frequent bus services. I think moving the station south from Cornwall to west 4th would place it too far to draw much traffic heading downtown from Senakw and the Molson site. Perhaps a 100m long station directly beneath Burrard between 2nd and 3rd, with entrances at West 1st and West 4th could work well.

Originally Posted by chowhou

So, I'd argue that a more likely fantasy alignment would be an above ground station at Arbutus with potential to continue south along the ROW. The elevated guideway can follow the ROW northeast all the way to the Granville Bridge where it can duck under the Fir offramp, fly over Granville, then again duck under the Hemlock onramp. There should be adequate clearance to do so and the design precedence exists on the Expo Line when it ducks underneath the Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts. The co-ops on SFC should be due/past due their lease expiry by that time so it should make sense for a tear down, a tunnel portal + South False Creek-Granville Island station to be built, and redevelopment on top. Routing through the downtown core TBD.

I had considered something like this alignment, but went with something further west for a few reasons. The first being the above mentioned projects which are adjacent to the Cornwall/Burrard intersection. The second being that this is also intended to be a relief portion for the Canada line and going west-east instead of north-south would make this more of a relief line for the Broadway Subway and add additional time to those going from UBC / Kits / West Broadway / Jericho to downtown that would make this less attractive of an option. Third, an alignment under Granville street would mirror the Canada Line and have to compete for physical space. Part of the intention of this alignment along Thurlow is to get as physically west into the West End as possible while still making for an efficient alignment for through-travelers, serving the currently planned development along Thurlow (including the major redevelopment of the current St Paul's location) as well as the eastern portion of the West End.

Originally Posted by Unregistered User

I think connecting the Hastings Line with Arbutus via Thurlow is the natural, smart, and inevitable move (replacing the 14 and probably 44 bus). I've long included such a route in my own fantasy network, but with a few changes:

1. There is a major station at Main and Hastings, and possibly stations at either somewhere like Hastings and Abbott or, my preference, Carrall and Water (a think a Gastown-themed station would just be too cool). I can't see a justification for any stations between Main and Commercial unless there is major development in EAST East Hastings.
2. More controversial: The station at Robson is shifted east enough for an unground transfer to Burrard (for an envisioned extension of the Expo Line to the North Shore with stations serving Coal Harbour and Denman). I love the idea of there being a triangle of transfer stations right at the heart of Downtown.

The portion east of Waterfront I haven't put quite as much thought into as the portion west of Waterfront, I do agree that the stations in Gastown / Railtown could be consolidated around Main Street. I do think that considering the development proposals between Hawks Ave and Clark Drive in the eastern portion of the Strathcona neighbourhood, it does deserve some higher order rapid transit (perhaps provisions for an infill station at the very least).

I was thinking about something similar when I was placing the Robson station, I ultimately wanted a station to serve Robson street as it is Vancouver's primary shopping street. However I wanted to create some realistic distance from the Davie Street location, and having it between Robson and Georgia would also let it serve the office district more for those commuting from UBC / Kits / West Broadway / Jericho / etc.

Considering Translink massively scaled back the renovation plans for Burrard Station I'm not overly hopeful that a large rebuild of the station could occur, but it certainly would be cool in this fantasy world to create a secondary transfer station for those coming from the Expo Line that wish to reach somewhere like Davie Village or Kitsilano Beach quickly and efficiently.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by mcj

I would like to live in a Vancouver where street-running LRT is recognized as unviable since everyone including Translink that studies it realizes it is effectively the same as a bus route, but it seems that the ghost of Dianne Watts does live on in some circles.

"Street running" as in running at-grade in its own ROW?

[jollyburger]

Isn't BRT essentially rail-less LRT?

[Migrant_Coconut]

The more time passes, the more an Arbutus/False Creek streetcar seems like a formality rather than something they actually want to do - it keeps getting watered down whenever they talk about it. Now the contract specifies "pedestrians, cyclists and light rail" on the corridor itself, but under the corridor could be a different story...

Originally Posted by mcj

I would like to live in a Vancouver where street-running LRT is recognized as unviable since everyone including Translink that studies it realizes it is effectively the same as a bus route, but it seems that the ghost of Dianne Watts does live on in some circles.

Gotta wait for Patrick Condon, Colleen Hardwick, Elizabeth Murphy, Bill Tieleman and all the other cranky old boomers to stop breathing (and even then they'll probably be blogposting via ouija board).

It's a moot point, though - as of 2021, 92% of Metro Vancouver supports SkyTrain to UBC.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Isn't BRT essentially rail-less LRT?

With our trolley articulated buses but in a ROW, pretty much.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Isn't BRT essentially rail-less LRT?

Technically you can get higher throughput with LRT, just take a look at the Melbourne E-class trams. They're massive and can carry 210 passengers compared to the XDE60's which officially carry 120-something, but 120 -> 210 isn't really a capacity increase that's worth the cost IMO.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Gotta wait for Patrick Condon, Gordon Price, Colleen Hardwick, Elizabeth Murphy, Bill Tieleman and all the other cranky old boomers to stop breathing (and even then they'll probably be blogposting via ouija board).

It's a moot point, though - as of 2021, 92% of Metro Vancouver supports SkyTrain to UBC.

As someone with a significant amount of disdain for Condon, Hardwick, Murphy, and Tieleman, it pains me to see Price mentioned next to their names. Sure he's not a Senakw fan, but he's an anti-streetcar bus enthusiast (technically written by Rob Grant, but signed off on by Price).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, if a 120-passenger vehicle isn't enough, it's usually time for a 500+.

Originally Posted by chowhou

As someone with a significant amount of disdain for Condon, Hardwick, Murphy, and Tieleman, it pains me to see Price mentioned next to their names. Sure he's not a Senakw fan, but he's an anti-streetcar bus enthusiast (technically written by Rob Grant, but signed off on by Price).

My bad. Lemme fix it real quick.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"Street running" as in running at-grade in its own ROW?

By street running, yes I mean at grade. Even if it has it's own ROW, if that crosses streets (such as the Arbutus corridor does), that's effectively just as useful as a bus lane.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Isn't BRT essentially rail-less LRT?

Pretty much, BRT gets you significantly more for the same price and the ability to re-route should the route get blocked.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The more time passes, the more an Arbutus/False Creek streetcar seems like a formality rather than something they actually want to do - it keeps getting watered down whenever they talk about it. Now the contract specifies "pedestrians, cyclists and light rail" on the corridor itself, but under the corridor could be a different story...

Gotta wait for Patrick Condon, Colleen Hardwick, Elizabeth Murphy, Bill Tieleman and all the other cranky old boomers to stop breathing (and even then they'll probably be blogposting via ouija board).

It's a moot point, though - as of 2021, 92% of Metro Vancouver supports SkyTrain to UBC.

Yeah hopefully at some point we can get rid of this slow and expensive idea of implementing yet another light rail variant to our transit mix. We already have two types of light rail in the Skytrain system, we don't need a third, and we especially don't need that third to be only as fast as a bus.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

With our trolley articulated buses but in a ROW, pretty much.

Articulated buses in a ROW (i.e. bus lane) I think is a great idea, we need more bus lanes.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Technically you can get higher throughput with LRT, just take a look at the Melbourne E-class trams. They're massive and can carry 210 passengers compared to the XDE60's which officially carry 120-something, but 120 -> 210 isn't really a capacity increase that's worth the cost IMO.

2 x 120 = 240, just run higher frequencies with buses it's scalable. In fact, buses are scalable beyond the point where grade separated rapid transit is justifiable (case in point with the 99 B-Line which has operated beyond the ridership of entire LRT systems in North America for decades now).

[GenWhy?]

I guess what I always forget about living here is that we have trolley (buses) already and hydro power. I'm used to cities that run articulated diesel buses for BRT.

I don't know the lifetime costs (up front and maintenance) between 1 articulated trolley and a LRT car(s) but as this is a fantasy thread, I'd like to believe at-grade LRT wins out.

Really wouldn't mind some LRT along Beach Ave from Yaletown Roundhouse up to 2nd Beach.

[FarmerHaight]

LRT can have much higher capacity than buses. The reason LRTs are usually only a couple carriages long is because of station constraints, and not some inherent limitation with the technology (e.g., Portland's MAX trains that have to be able to stop on 61 metre downtown blocks without blocking cross streets, cross walks, etc.). If a Vancouver at-grade LRT was to only run in dedicated ROW (Arbutus corridor, False Creek South) or on longer city blocks without frequent cross streets (Quebec, Pacific) or underground, there's no reason we couldn't see Skytrain-length five or six car trains on said network. LRT is also a much smoother ride than buses, especially on dedicated ROW.

I think Skytrain will always be superior to at-grade LRT, but the question is at what cost? If we could have an at-grade LRT system running around False Creek, up Arbutus, and along West Georgia to Stanley Park for the same cost as Skytrain just from 41st to Broadway along Arbutus, shouldn't we at least consider it? (I am not saying this is an actual comparison. I am just suggesting that LRT is a useful middle ground between BRT and Skytrain and shouldn't be relegated to "more expensive bus" or "slower Skytrain" status.) With traffic signal priority and long trains, LRT has the potential to be much higher capacity than BRT and only slightly slower than Skytrain, at a much lower cost than Skytrain.

I am not good at drawing transit fantasy maps, but here is my pitch:
1. Build the two easiest portions of an LRT network first. This would be the Arbutus corridor to from 41st to Granville Island and the South False Creek corridor from Senawk to Olympic Village Station. For the Arbutus corridor, close every at-grade intersection except 41st, 33rd, King Edward, 16th, 12th, Broadway, and Burrard. Pedestrian and cyclist crossings at the closed intersections could still be facilitated by some combination of overpasses and underpasses.
2. Consider reasonable extensions in the first phase that can be accomplished relatively cheaply and would have significant impacts. E.g., an extension from OV station to Science World station to capture Science World tourists and enable easy transfers to the Expo line and PCS inter-city services. Or an extension of the Arbutus corridor from 41st down to the North Arm.
3. Consider the pie-in-the-sky extensions. Some options include:
- A crossing from Senakw over False Creek (difficult with the elevation changes to tunnel or bridge though);
- Closing Robson to traffic and running an LRT all the way to Stanley Park;
- Tunneling from the western end of Hastings to Waterfront and from Waterfront to Science World to
build an extension from Science World through Chinatown to Waterfront and on to Stanley Park along the northern edge of the peninsula (this would be $$$ and would repeat movements offered by a Hastings line and the Expo line though);
- Building an extension from Science World along Pacific and Beach all the way to Stanley Park along the southern edge of the peninsula;
- Building a crossing from the end of the Arbutus corridor to Sea Island to enable transfers to the Canada Line at Templeton (this would truly turn the LRT into a Canada Line relief line, as I imagine even at lower speeds taking the LRT to the airport would be faster than taking the Canada Line for anyone living south of False Creek and west of Granville);
- Building an extension along the Marpole Spur at least to the River District and maybe all the way to New West; and
- Closing Stanley Park to all public traffic and building a LRT loop around Park Drive, connecting to both the northern and southern peninsula options described above.

[NewfBC]

Well, look what happned in Surrey. They were going to build LRT to connect Guildford, Central and Newton (and further South possibly).. instead they got a Skytrain through the middle of nowhere (that will be built who knows when) at double the cost. The LRT would be built and in operation now.

Ron.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Well, look what happned in Surrey. They were going to build LRT to connect Guildford, Central and Newton (and further South possibly).. instead they got a Skytrain through the middle of nowhere (that will be built who knows when) at double the cost. The LRT would be operating now.

Ron.

Hey Ron, could you explain what you think happened in Surrey? Been over it many times here that Translink conducted economic and technical feasibility studies into that LRT system that ultimately showed it was less efficient than a bus, and that a Skytrain/BRT combo was the way to go.

Here's a link to the study, RRT1A is the combo we are getting now, which surprise surprise shows the best ridership and travel time numbers.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

Well, look what happned in Surrey. They were going to build LRT to connect Guildford, Central and Newton (and further South possibly).. instead they got a Skytrain through the middle of nowhere (that will be built who knows when) at double the cost. The LRT would be built and in operation now.

Ron.

Daily reminder that the Expo Line, Millennium Line, and Canada Line were all built "through the middle of nowhere" when they were first completed (especially the Millennium Line). Do you remember Brentwood pre-Skytrain? Surrey Centre? Joyce?

If you look at the history, the SLS catchment is something like twice the Canada Line's catchment at completion. The Skytrain that was famously described in the words of a certain mayor:



A Skytrain that met maximum ridership expectations day one.

I will not stand by and accept this talking point.