HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 8:32 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stainer View Post
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.
22m works out to at least 333m of run (likely more because TransLink seems to save 6% grade for emergencies only) and a moderately bigger earthquake hazard. Seems like Brentwood's out of options.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 8:35 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stainer View Post
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.
Don't forget that Brentwood might be 22m above BCIT, but it also needs to fly over the Brentwood station adding another 10m or so to the required height to climb (assuming we don't have a 20m high station at BCIT... poor BCIT students).

Quote:
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.
Building underground solves a lot of issues when people aren't concerned about costs or project management.

Quote:
Plus if you look at the many site plans for the areas around Brentwood, every piece of currently available land has plans already.
Agreed, Brentwood is not well positioned for the Purple Line in my opinion. Gilmore should be the transfer station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 8:36 PM
BaddieB BaddieB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmk View Post
Except moodyville is flanks by parks, steep slopes, the low level road, and the train tracks.
If there is an elevated skytrain there, the elevation difference won't be as extreme, like with Sapperton. A Moodyville station would be about 1.5-1.7km away from a Lonsdale Quay station, so I don't see how it wouldn't warrant a station, considering this.

Also, do you think that if the Skytrain alignment were to go along Low Level Road, that it would be elevated through Lonsdale? It would not make sense to spend the money tunnelling for such a short section.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 10:13 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,167
That "Lions Gate Station" at Cap Road is curious too - the NW and SE corners are full, so they may have to build on the reserve. Could the MST convince TransLink to move it further towards Khatsilano? Maybe even under the Lions Gate at Spirit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 10:28 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is online now
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaddieB View Post
If there is an elevated skytrain there, the elevation difference won't be as extreme, like with Sapperton. A Moodyville station would be about 1.5-1.7km away from a Lonsdale Quay station, so I don't see how it wouldn't warrant a station, considering this.

Also, do you think that if the Skytrain alignment were to go along Low Level Road, that it would be elevated through Lonsdale? It would not make sense to spend the money tunnelling for such a short section.
I'm just curious why 3rd. I would of even thought from Cap mall, East Keith to Seylynn and then Phibbs.

If we don't care about connecting with the seabus, why not take West Keith 13th?
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 10:30 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
Interesting discussion going on. Here are my thoughts:

(1) North Shore Alignment from Phibbs to Lonsdale: I think along Main Street we are likely to see an elevated alignment at least up until the intersection with 3rd Street. The center bus lane would be removed and replaced with the supports for a center street alignment.

(2) An elevated alignment along Main/Cotton can reduce grades if the line goes up the 3rd Street hill and, if it to transitions to below grade cut & cover it will reduce the hill grade even further. Where I see value in potentially going along Esplanade and Forbes rather than 3rd would more so be related to the connection with the bus exchange at Lonsdale Quay rather than the Seabus itself, but you could also argue that all the busses that go to that exchange would cross a Skytrain alignment on 3rd anyway so from a commuter perspective 3rd potentially decreases travel time at the expense of the comfort of a nice bus exchange. It might also make more sense for the lower road such that the line could stay above grade and so that the line could terminate at Lonsdale Quay (with continuation along to Park Royal in a separate phase).

(3) It makes sense to prioritize North-South travel objectives along the line and a Z-alignment on Hastings doesn't necessarily accomplish this well for a number of reasons:
  1. Interlining decreases the functionality of both lines.
  2. The z shape makes the line longer and therefore slower than a more direct alignment between the North Shore and Gilmore/Brentwood.
  3. The 90d turns are also fairly significant, particularly with any turn from Hastings south onto Willingdon or Gilmore where the intersections are already significantly crowded with mid-rise buildings.
  4. The PNE is a seasonal destination and in my view is not important enough to prioritize a connection unless the connection will be inconsequential because of other routing requirements, plus when there is a future Hastings line it will have the ability to be connected from that line.
  5. Commuters using the North Shore line will not be primarily heading downtown as chowhou has outlined. There are simply faster options that no skytrain option short of a Gold line that can compete with existing options.

(4) Willingdon has a lower peak elevation than Gilmore and has a roughly 3.5% grade north of the highway with sections up to 5.5%. It is likely not possible to go from a below grade alignment to an above grade alignment directly north of the mall because the grades would be too steep. Either the entire portion would need to be elevated causing problems with getting past the Millenium Line, or the portion from Lougheed to Hastings would need to be cut & cover. It might make sense for this if we are considering a future Hastings Line that could potentially be elevated along the full length of Hastings.

(5) If we are prioritizing North-South travel objectives, then perhaps connecting the crossing with a more direct route might be considered that doesn't include 90d turns and crosses Hastings rather than interlines with it. A non-exhaustive list of options:
  1. Cassiar-1st Alignment: Using the new IWMB then following Cassiar St above grade to 1st ave. Following 1st ave above grade until Douglas St with Cut & Cover down Lougheed until Willingdon with a station in the SE corner of Lougheed & Willingdon before turning south above grade down Alpha. This option is probably cheapest with available space for above grade following the highway and 1st without lots of land acquisition. However, it may cause challenges when a future Hastings Line is built with one line having to fly over the other (can't go underground because the highway is there). It also has an advantage of giving Boundary & 1st the opportunity for a station.
  2. Willingdon-Maplewood Skybridge Alignment: Extending the line past Phibbs to Maplewood, then turning south with an independent skybridge over the eastern part of the narrows. Advantage of connecting Maplewood where higher density TOD is a possibility, but a disadvantage of having to be a separate bridge project from a new IWMB.
  3. South Shore to Willingdon Alignment: Routing the Skytrain from a new IWMB to Gilmore or Willingdon elevated along the waterfront beside the CP rail. This has the advantage of being simple and integrated with a new highway bridge, but a disadvantage of not having a station at Maplewood for the same distance of track.
  4. Bored Tunnel Alignment: Bored tunnel from a new IWMB paralleling the rail line but not as deep with a station at Hastings (3% grade is easily accomplishable) then continuing straight towards Halifax and Douglas with cut & cover along Willingdon to Lougheed with a transition to above grade before turning south at Alpha. Advantage of being the most direct but introduces bored tunnel expenses and challenges.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 11:06 PM
BaddieB BaddieB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 652
I think the advantage of having the Inlet Line go along Hastings is the cost savings you'd have with a Hastings Line. Even if you needed to quad track it there, it would still save money.

I think if there were to be one of your options though, boring diagonally (option D) seems the most cost effective, while covering the Heights area. Going along the freeway is just a waste.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 11:08 PM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,196
I really don't see a station (or any of the line for that matter) being built on reserve land. If all else fails they could just move it one block east to around McGuire
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 11:24 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is online now
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,809
Significantly more people living around willingdon and hastings than hastings and cassiar

And maplewood is getting big plans for future development
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 11:39 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 15,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmk View Post
I'm just curious why 3rd. I would of even thought from Cap mall, East Keith to Seylynn and then Phibbs.

If we don't care about connecting with the seabus, why not take West Keith 13th?
I assume terrain would be an issue. 3rd is bad, Keith is worse. From a development "potential" argument it would be the optimal routing along that stretch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted May 29, 2024, 11:46 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
That "Lions Gate Station" at Cap Road is curious too - the NW and SE corners are full, so they may have to build on the reserve. Could the MST convince TransLink to move it further towards Khatsilano? Maybe even under the Lions Gate at Spirit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
I really don't see a station (or any of the line for that matter) being built on reserve land. If all else fails they could just move it one block east to around McGuire
I hope you're not falling victim to Google Maps lying about reserve borders...

https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/esrica-t...location=49.322062%2C-123.114677%2C13.73

Marine Drive is completely out of the reserve, so a station could be build in the median, not unlike Brentwood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
...
Great thoughts as always waves, I always enjoy seeing a post from you.

Is there a particular reason you don't consider a Gilmore Station exchange? In fact, if we take the design of your Option A route where we limit the below-grade routing to its ultimate conclusion; we could follow Cassiar/HWY1 to 1st, then instead cross the Fortis BC and OpenRoad dealership properties over to the BC Hydro RoW and take it over to Gilmore and Dawson for an exchange there. From there we can follow Still Creek back over to Willingdon to have no below-grade sections whatsoever.

IMO 1st and Boundary isn't a great place for a station though, so we could be even more aggressive and align with Skeena down to 5th, then cross the highway at Lougheed and travel down the median over to the RoW. However, if we hit the 1st and Boundary intersection, that would make for an easy connection to BTC if we need to convert the south lot to an OMC for this line.


Last edited by chowhou; May 29, 2024 at 11:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 12:01 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
I really don't see a station (or any of the line for that matter) being built on reserve land. If all else fails they could just move it one block east to around McGuire
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
I hope you're not falling victim to Google Maps lying about reserve borders...

...Marine Drive is completely out of the reserve, so a station could be build in the median, not unlike Brentwood.
The reserve's adjacent to Marine, it's not like it's 200m south.

There's a precedent with Jericho - the original plan for UBCx was the Point Grey Safeway at Sasamat, but TransLink was convinced to shift it a whole klick away. Sure, Norgate's big, but not big enough that the SkyTrain needs to be right next to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djmk View Post
Except moodyville is flanks by parks, steep slopes, the low level road, and the train tracks.
Templeton and Braid are even worse off. Moodyville's getting new density right now, while Park & Tilford isn't even planned for rezoning yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 12:11 AM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
There's a precedent with Jericho - the original plan for UBCx was the Point Grey Safeway at Sasamat, but TransLink was convinced to shift it a whole klick away. Sure, Norgate's big, but not big enough that the SkyTrain needs to be right next to it.
Jericho is a bit different as it's completely undeveloped land which has a development plan designed around the station being in it. Skytrain construction will be easier through the site as they can just freely excavate, and the density justifies the station whereas the rest of West Point Grey does not. Jericho also isn't reserve land.

Seymour IR 5 on the other hand is one of the reserves which Squamish members currently live on. Needless to say, they don't currently have plans to evict all their members for any major developments.

There really shouldn't be any concerns about building in the Marine Drive median @ Capilano Road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 12:27 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
Jericho is a bit different as it's completely undeveloped land which has a development plan designed around the station being in it. Skytrain construction will be easier through the site as they can just freely excavate, and the density justifies the station whereas the rest of West Point Grey does not. Jericho also isn't reserve land...
While I understand the spirit of this argument, the Jericho Garrison is IIRC still occupied, as are the handful of schools and pool in the west half - sooner or later they'll all have to be evicted or displaced. It's only the RCMP building that's vacant at the moment. Did you get mixed up with Senakw?

Likewise, assuming the MST come up with some kind of phased development plan of a similar magnitude for Cap Reserve 5 (that involves musical chairs instead of displacement) there's a non-zero chance they'll ask for a station in the middle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 12:30 AM
BaddieB BaddieB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 652
I present to you my Option 2. I think it's a better route than elevating along Hwy 1 for a number of reasons



1. It is shorter by about 500m

2. It provides better coverage to the denser parts of Burnaby. Gilmore and Hastings is in the heart of Burnaby Heights

3. Having an interchange at Brentwood is more sensible. Gilmore is on the boundary of the Brentwood area, so it would be less accessible than Brentwood, which is in the middle. It would have the be elevated, but I don't think there would be much opposition.

4. I don't think a Parker and Willingdon Station is a necessity, but it could constructed in a way that would easily facilitate an infill station.

5. Could be cheaper - if deep tunnel boring under Burnaby Heights isn't as expensive as it is on say BSP, like it was through Burnaby Mountain on the Evergreen Line. Cut and Cover on Willingdon along the Linear Park can reduce costs further
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 12:35 AM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
While I understand the spirit of this argument, the Jericho Garrison is IIRC still occupied, as are the handful of schools and pool in the west half - sooner or later they'll all have to be evicted or displaced. Did you get mixed up with Senakw?

Likewise, assuming the MST come up with some kind of phased development plan of a similar magnitude for Cap Reserve 5 (that involves musical chairs instead of displacement) there's a non-zero chance they'll ask for a station in the middle.
Oh, consider me incorrect then. I was under the impression that Jericho was essentially deserted following the sale to MST.

Consider it completely undeveloped by the landowners then. I'm sure the MST development corp has no qualms about evicting the remaining residents (on that note do they get ROFR for the eventual development? Let's not derail the thread with that line of thought though.)

I just don't see a reason why Translink would want the station aligned further south. The Squamish council could ask, but I don't see a compelling reason for Translink to say yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 12:40 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,167
Oh yeah, they're gone (eventually).

Just a Fantasy Thread pitch. Translink gains no extra ridership from going through the Lions Gate cloverleaf, so they could theoretically detour down Khatsahlano, Mathias or Lower Cap, then Spirit, then approach Park Royal from under the Lions Gate. They probably won't, but they could if the MST ask for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 12:55 AM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaddieB View Post
3. Having an interchange at Brentwood is more sensible. Gilmore is on the boundary of the Brentwood area, so it would be less accessible than Brentwood, which is in the middle. It would have the be elevated, but I don't think there would be much opposition.
Engineering and business case decisions don't rely on what's "sensible". They rely on ridership projections, dollar signs, and technical feasibility. It's undeniable that connecting with Brentwood would be slightly better for Brentwood residents, but as discussed in this thread there are a whole multitude of cost and technical issues that might make it not worthwhile; not to mention that it means people transferring to-and-from the Millennium Line heading towards Broadway are slightly inconvenienced. Remember that Translink isn't interested in drawing pretty lines on maps like we are, they have an actual transit network to manage!

If Translink can build the Purple Line without any below-grade sections, I think that might be hard to argue against.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 1:27 AM
officedweller officedweller is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,747
A few other factors regarding stations that have been brought up in the past:

- Should Brentwood be the transfer station? It would be convenient, but adding transferring passengers to what would likely be the busiest station (due to shopping and resident passenger loads) may not be the best idea. The catchment area for Brentwood Station originates from all directions, whereas the catchment area for Gilmore Station is more limited. Arguably, Gilmore Station would have a better ability to handle loads from transferring passengers (including additional transfers headed to Amazing Brentwood). The best option for a transfer station at Brentwood Station would be in connection with redevelopment of the Carter GM lands on the SE corner, using the vertical core on the south side of Lougheed Highway.
But the question remains whether the Busby-designed Brentwood Station can handle the loads, because those platforms can't be widened due to the ribs, and it's a side platform station, so a Spanish solution can't be built. At least at Gilmore Station, it may also be possible to widen the platforms of the existing station (if there is clearance to Gilmore Place structures).

- A PNE Station could be part of Phase 2 of the Purple Line. Arguably, much of the catchment headed to the PNE originates from the west, so having a PNE Station connected in Phase 1 to the North Shore and Metrotown may not be all that pressing (or could be served by a Kootenay Loop Station). A turn out switch could be installed at the south end of the Burrard Inlet SkyBridge where the line is elevated for the branch to the PNE and Downtown Vancouver.

- A Heights Station is a good idea. It doesn't necessarily need to be in the heart of the Heights and could be in a tunnel as far west as Boundary or even under Kootenay Loop to facilitate bus connections along Hastings back to Vancouver until Phase 2 is built, as well as connections along Boundary Road. A Kootenay Loop Station could also serve the PNE until Phase 2 is built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted May 30, 2024, 1:33 AM
BaddieB BaddieB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 652
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
Engineering and business case decisions don't rely on what's "sensible". They rely on ridership projections, dollar signs, and technical feasibility.
I would argue those things constitute 'sensibility', but that's me being semantic.

The point of it inconveniencing riders going to Broadway is true, but it would benefit those headed eastward (which there are definitely less of, but worth considering), but it would only be by 2 or 3 minutes.

In my opinion, having a Gilmore interchange makes the Inlet Line far less useful for Brentwood neighbourhood. Most people in the area, except probably east of Springer and those adjacent to Gilmore Station, would opt to walk to Brentwood Station if they were going on the Inlet Line only. This wouldn't be the case with a Gilmore interchange, and it would add considerable time for everyone to walk to their nearest station, wait for their train, and then make their transfer at Gilmore and wait again. Brentwood is not a small neighbourhood, it is posed to have 70,000 to 90,000 people once fully built out (if not more with Bill 47). That's like the population of New Westminster or City of North Vancouver today. Putting the interchange in the furthest corner of the neighbourhood just seems short-sighted. There would have to be considerable cost savings to justify it.

In other words, it would be like putting the Metrotown neighbourhood interchange at Patterson.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.