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

[Metro-One]

I really hope this helps push Translink and the province away from an intermediate rapid bus system, which if implemented with any seriousness would still cost hundreds of millions of dollars (and in the end would just be a waste of money and time).

As for Burnaby Heights, my guess is that with the steep grades they want to tunnel between the PNE to Brentwood (I wouldn't be surprised if the Brentwood station itself will be underground, with the portal just south of it) and therefore any Burnaby Heights station (if even going near to that area as shown) would be a ridiculously deep station if built, making it far too costly.

Also, the dual bridge concept is interesting.

Instead of making the two extra road lanes east bound only CD system, why not just make it a local road (one lane each way) that avoids the highway entirely?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I really hope this helps push Translink and the province away from an intermediate rapid bus system, which if implemented with any seriousness would still cost hundreds of millions of dollars (and in the end would just be a waste of money and time).

At the very least, pushing the R2 all the way through to Metrotown seems like a done deal now.

As for Burnaby Heights, my guess is that with the steep grades they want to tunnel between the PNE to Brentwood (I wouldn't be surprised if the Brentwood station itself will be underground, with the portal just south of it) and therefore any Burnaby Heights station (if even going near to that area as shown) would be a ridiculously deep station if built, making it far too costly.

There's really no good tunnel portal south of Brentwood until BCIT, personally I don't think this route makes a ton of practical sense south of Burrard Inlet. (Remember that this study was commissioned by the DNV so it's likely DNV oriented).

Also, the dual bridge concept is interesting.

In my opinion, dual bridge is really the default choice. If they choose to do an integrated bridge, that would be interesting.

Instead of making the two extra road lanes east bound only CD system, why not just make it a local road (one lane each way) that avoids the highway entirely?

My generous guess is that they want to have a Main -> McGill/Hastings general traffic lane along with a dedicated Phibbs -> McGill/Hastings bus lane.

[Stainer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Even adding a few K.O. panels along the mezzanine to connect to a future Gold Line would help. It'd be a parallel station rather than a perpendicular one, which should make integration easier.

Of course it will be designed for the future Hastings line, whenever that gets built.

Translink has a history of designing for the future since it saves money and can reduce service disruptions.

If I was a betting man, I would expect the first station south of the bridge to look very similar to Coquitlam station with the switches on the west side of the station. And then have a multiplatform setup where trains from NV share a cross platform connection to trains heading downtown.




Photo Credit - me

[chowhou]

IMO if they're truly going to be designing for a future Hastings Line, there's no reason to run parallel to Hastings. That just makes things too complicated; I don't believe Hastings has the width for four tunnels side-by-side, and later on trying to tunnel beneath the existing tunnels sounds like an engineering nightmare. And please don't try to make it work with two tracks...

I suppose they could build four tunnels from the get-go, but with any Hastings Line being decades out if not more, that feels a bit wasteful.

I still advocate for a Gilmore aligned inlet crossing with a simple crossing across Hastings instead of this S-curve nonsense.

[madog222]

Except there is no plan for grade separation of a Hastings line.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by madog222

Except there is no plan for grade separation of a Hastings line.

To be precise, there's currently no plan for a Hastings Skytrain Line at all.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by chowhou

To be precise, there's currently no plan for a Hastings Skytrain Line at all.

I think this is more accurate. Anything to do with the Hastings line is pure speculation / fantasy. Given the current rate of projects, we are looking at at least two decades before even the pre-planning for this is starting to be discussed (current order is: Finish Broadway Subway Phase 1, Expo Extension to Langley, Broadway Subway phase 2, Purple Line, ?

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

(I wouldn't be surprised if the Brentwood station itself will be underground, with the portal just south of it) and therefore any Burnaby Heights station (if even going near to that area as shown) would be a ridiculously deep station if built, making it far too costly.

But where exactly? There isn't really room for them to put in a portal (unless they want a 4 lane Willingdon there, which I have no problem with). There's development proposals on all sides of Willingdon, and go any more south it is swamp land.

[Stainer]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

But where exactly? There isn't really room for them to put in a portal (unless they want a 4 lane Willingdon there, which I have no problem with). There's development proposals on all sides of Willingdon, and go any more south it is swamp land.

Remember, Skytrain only goes in tunnels when absolutely necessary since it adds significant cost compared to being elevated.

[scottN]

Well there's the large parking lots / gas station / car dealership covering the whole block SE of Willingdon and Lougheed. That seems like an ideal spot for a tunnel portal and station platform. Tunnel seems like the only option to me here. I don't see how it would be possible to build a N-S elevated line going all the way up and over the M-line.

A fully elevated option would have to go via Gilmore station (instead of Brentwood), then linking up with highway 1 and following it to the second narrows bridge.

[BaddieB]

There is the S-E corner of Lougheed and Brentwood that is currently empty, but that's simply not enough room, not to mention that the tracks would ram right into the Amazing Brentwood on the other side. The 'South Yards' development is in the way for the tracks to make their way to the east of Willingdon to portal too. There just simply isn't room.

Really the only thing they can do is have the tracks arch above the M-line, which isn't a dealbreaker, it would actually probably be cheaper than digging and look really cool.

This is on Burnaby for doing absolutely zero planning for this project ahead of time. There could have very well been plans in place to accommodate an underground portal for Brentwood, but alas there is none. How many hundreds of millions will be spent on negligent planning? What exactly are we paying planners to do if they can't get this basic line right?

[Migrant_Coconut]

An M-Line flyover would have to be maybe 20m tall and probably start climbing the slope at BCIT. Seems much easier to dig down the middle of Willingdon instead.

As for suburban "planning," anything with more foresight than "take the condo development fees and run" is incredibly rare.

Originally Posted by scottN

Well there's the large parking lots / gas station / car dealership covering the whole block SE of Willingdon and Lougheed...

Assuming of course that it doesn't become condos between now and construction.

Also consider that a tunnel would have to run 10+ metres below Lougheed; even maxed out at a 6% grade, they'd have to start well south of Dawson. Might as well put the portal further down and level out the track.

[BaddieB]

The only place it could possibly portal before Brentwood is on the property on the south east corner of Willingdon and Still Creek Drive, although that would mean they would have to do a lot of work to dig underneath the existing freight rail lines there, costing who knows how much.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Why's Alaska/Juneau not an option?

[BaddieB]

You mean on the west side of Willingdon south of Juneau? it would work, but you would reduce Willingdon to four lanes, assuming you took up space from the sidewalk and bike lane there. As I said, I wouldn't see the problem with un-widening Willingdon for that (especially as it's already four lanes if you ignore the HOV), but I don't know about the City of Burnaby though.

There also might not be enough room length-wise, and you'd likely have to close Juneau, maybe even Dawson, but I can't say.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Stainer

Remember, Skytrain only goes in tunnels when absolutely necessary since it adds significant cost compared to being elevated.

Not to mention it is so much nicer as a passenger riding elevated trains in the West Coast as opposed to being a groundhog.

[Stainer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

An M-Line flyover would have to be maybe 20m tall and probably start climbing the slope at BCIT. Seems much easier to dig down the middle of Willingdon instead.

It's only a 22m ground level difference in height. Yes it would need to be higher then the M line, but again it's very doable and orders of magnitude cheaper.

I've noticed online in various communities people are absolutely convinced that it needs to be underground. Yet they completely miss the fact that Skytrain only goes underground when absolutely necessary as it's very expensive, requires extra engineer work, and isn't as nice to ride.

Excluding the Canada line, the BSP is the first time tunneling has been used as a choice (justified choice). Whereas in the past, all tunnel segments have been absolutely necessary, or offered massive savings/convenience (Dunsmuir tunnel)

Plus if you look at the many site plans for the areas around Brentwood, every piece of currently available land has plans already.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Stainer

Remember, Skytrain only goes in tunnels when absolutely necessary since it adds significant cost compared to being elevated.

Agreed. Hence:

Originally Posted by scottN

A fully elevated option would have to go via Gilmore station (instead of Brentwood), then linking up with highway 1 and following it to the second narrows bridge.

IMO a Gilmore Station connection + Gilmore Ave alignment is much more reasonable. There is ample room along the east side of Gilmore to allow a maximally above-grade route (which is actually a requirement imposed on Translink IIRC). I think it's probably inescapable to have to tunnel through The Heights, though.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hastings isn't going to stay at BRT forever though - eventually we'll need a subway there as well, and it better be compatible with the Purple stations.

At any rate, we now know what TransLink's probably doing next after UBC.



It's about as dense as Wesbrook, and the current plan is to dig all the way across UBC to get there. I didn't see anybody complaining when they announced stations at Templeton, Braid or Lake City.

Except moodyville is flanks by parks, steep slopes, the low level road, and the train tracks.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Stainer

I've noticed online in various communities people are absolutely convinced that it needs to be underground. Yet they completely miss the fact that Skytrain only goes underground when absolutely necessary as it's very expensive, requires extra engineer work, and isn't as nice to ride.

I think this is a reflection of the idea that the general population will reject a project because of the visual impact of elevated rail (the irony is that having transit underground itself has a negative visual impact to users).

At any rate, I hope the more cost-effective option is chosen to have it all be elevated in Brentwood, even continuing elevated up to until Hastings.