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

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

- 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.

Having a high density node also be a transfer station makes a lot of sense from a network point of view. If you assume equal amounts of volume from passengers traveling north/south vs east/west, having the transfer station elsewhere forces half of your passengers into a situation where they have to transfer instead of directly boarding the train they prefer. Transfers, even Skytrain-to-Skytrain, add friction to a trip and make the system less desirable to use.

[waves]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Is there a particular reason you don't consider a Gilmore Station exchange?

My intentions with my other post were more about the interaction of Hastings with a North Shore Line. The question of "should Brentwood be the transfer station?" is a still a good question. Making some assumptions first on alignment:

• Brentwood interchange: Two realistic options: (1) below grade cut & cover on Willingdon just before Lougheed, or (2) at-grade using the SE Corner of Lougheed and Willingdon.
• Gilmore interchange: The only option realistically would have to be below grade as a flyover of the already high existing track would be excessively high and would need to somehow facilitate a station.

In terms of different criteria, what are the considerations?

• Future Ridership: Brentwood is the clear winner over Gilmore as BaddieB has pointed out. Gilmore is continuing to develop but even so, it seems unlikely to surpass the density already present and continuing to grow within the Brentwood catchment.
• Station Capacity: Brentwood has ample room to double or even triple its annual boardings. As of the 2023 ridership, Brentwood currently has 2.2 million annual boardings. To put this in perspective, that is equivalent to 29th Ave station which has no density around it whatsoever. Brentwood ranks 14th in the system on ridership for two-platform layouts (side or stacked). The 1st place is Granville at 5.5 million boardings. Brentwood also pales in comparison to Metrotown, the busiest simple center platform in the system at 8.2 million boardings. Gilmore certainly ranks far lower at 1 million boardings, but with how much capacity Brentwood still has to offer, I think it is a difficult sell for me that Gilmore should be preferred over Brentwood strictly because of station capacity. Source.
• Ease of Transfer (Train): With a Brentwood station at-grade in the SE Corner, alignment (2), the south emergency exit of Brentwood would be replaced with a direct connection to the new station. This could potentially lead to a seamless transfer without leaving the fare paid zone. With Gilmore and a below grade station, or with a Brentwood alignment (1), it seems more likely that you would need to leave the fare paid zone to street level before ascending up to the existing station. For a station that will have significant transfers, having to leave the fare paid zone is a significant draw back.
• Ease of Transfer (Bus): Brentwood and Gilmore are equally bad on their bus connections. If acquiring the SE Corner will allow a bus exchange to be built at Brentwood then this would be the preferable option. If the properties along the west of Gilmore are redeveloped, this could also provide an opportunity for a new bus exhange.
• Reduction of Transfers: As aberdeen5698 explains, Brentwood is preferable due to its status a destination node, or, anchor point.
• Utilities: Utilities under Gilmore include a Sewer Force Main in addition to a Sewer and Water Main. Under Willingdon is only a Water Main except for the block south of Lougheed for only a short distance. Brentwood alignment (2) is the simplest option, followed by Brentwood alignment (1), then Gilmore being the most complex. Source.
• Environmental: A below grade alignment at Gilmore would need to be engineered to function in coordination with Chub Creek and Still Creek. That should be possible to accomplish without significant difficulty but it is an added consideration.
• Partnerships: Development opportunities on the SE Corner of Brentwood Alignment (2) have the potential to bring money into the project. Development opportunities could also exist along the properties west of Gilmore station.
• Connectivity: Gilmore with a steeper elevation profile and with more complex utilities makes connection from the existing Gilmore station to Burnaby Heights more difficult than a Willingdon alignment. Gilmore could present opportunities to connect westward as a few of you have suggested below already. Both alignments seem to be equally capable of connecting southwards to BCIT.
• Cost: With all alignments below grade or at-grade with transitions, station cost is likely to be similar and cost will be more impacted by route alignment rather than the particulars of the station.
• Are there other criterion that might be applicable?

From this list it seems clear to me that a Brentwood option is superior. If there are other unique solutions I haven't thought of for Gilmore alignments that change this evaluation I'd be interested to hear them.

[Stainer]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Having a high density node also be a transfer station makes a lot of sense from a network point of view. If you assume equal amounts of volume from passengers traveling north/south vs east/west, having the transfer station elsewhere forces half of your passengers into a situation where they have to transfer instead of directly boarding the train they prefer. Transfers, even Skytrain-to-Skytrain, add friction to a trip and make the system less desirable to use.

Can guarantee that all 3 interchanges at Metrotown, Brentwood, and the PNE (or where the gold line will be) will be the best interchanges on the network with loads of platform space and many escalators, elevators, and stair sets. Built it right the first time.

[waves]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

This could be a possibility, but the above grade section at Gilmore would be exceptionally high with it's requirement to pass over the existing Skytrain track. This would also add complications with where the station would go in terms of its distance from the existing Gilmore station such that transfers can be facilitated without undue burden. Are there other station alignments that I am not seeing that would allow this route alignment to work better?

Originally Posted by BaddieB

I present to you my Option 2, [Bored tunnel past Gilmore & Hastings to Parker & Willingdon]. I think it's a better route than elevating along Hwy 1 for a number of reasons

This seems like another reasonable option worth considering. A south shore alignment to Willingdon with cut & cover is probably cheaper still, but your option would be more direct and perhaps faster.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Stainer

Can guarantee that all 3 interchanges at Metrotown, Brentwood, and the PNE (or where the gold line will be) will be the best interchanges on the network with loads of platform space and many escalators, elevators, and stair sets. Built it right the first time.

Yes, totally. I hope your statement will become like a mantra, repeated over and over to guide project development along as quickly and well-designed as possible.

[Tvisforme]

Of course, we could just skip BCIT and go directly from Brentwood to Metrotown...

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by waves

This could be a possibility, but the above grade section at Gilmore would be exceptionally high with it's requirement to pass over the existing Skytrain track. This would also add complications with where the station would go in terms of its distance from the existing Gilmore station such that transfers can be facilitated without undue burden. Are there other station alignments that I am not seeing that would allow this route alignment to work better?

Exceptionally high, almost certainly, but exceptionally grade separated? Not necessarily. I can't find any documentation about current Skytrain stations heights, but we do have information on depths; Granville Station, the deepest station, has platforms sitting 25m below grade. We also know that the Millennium Line platforms at Broadway-City Hall will be around 20m deep. Somewhat infamously (at least on this forum), Translink justifies the relative inaccessibility of the Broadway-City Hall Millennium Line platforms by saying that most transit users will be transferring. We can steal this line of argumentation a bit for a Gilmore Station exchange.

We know that the west escalators of Metrotown Station are 13m high and the escalators span from ground to the platforms meaning the platform is approximately 13m high. I'm going to assume that Gilmore Station is roughly the same height. This is sufficient vertical clearance for vehicular traffic on Gilmore and Dawson/Hennings, but this is overkill for a flyover. We also know that the Broadway Extension tunnels are 6m in diameter. This is considered a reasonable amount of space to design for train vertical clearance and railbed plus tunnel liners. A very conservative estimate of the necessary height would be the 13m guideway + 6m Millennium Line clearance + another metre of concrete between the bottom of the Purple Line guideway and the Purple Line platform level. This is 20m; No different from the design of Broadway-City Hall, and significantly closer to grade than Granville. If we consider it reasonable to expect people to descend 20m to the Millennium Line platform at Broadway-City Hall, it should be reasonable to expect people to climb 20m to the Purple Line platform at Gilmore.

As for the platform transfer, well that would be no worse than the Commercial-Broadway transfer which has a horizontal distance of around 95m and a vertical distance of likely more than 20m. (The Expo Line platform is probably also approximately 13m above grade, and the Millennium Line platform is likely more than 7m below grade.



By my Google Maps measurements, the distance from the end of the Millennium Line platforms to BC Hydro ROW is about 80m.



There's also a world where a the Purple Line platform is parallel to Gilmore oriented North-South above the intersection. The transfer is even shorter then (but the guideway would have to make more turns).

At the very least, a Purple Line Gilmore Station would certainly not be an outlier in the current Skytrain system.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Of course, we could just skip BCIT and go directly from Brentwood to Metrotown...

Small-scale thinking, my friend. Build the SkyTrain "Milleau Viaduct" from Park Royal to Metrotown direct.

[CB-Thompson]

Something I like about Wave's Willingdon-Maplewood Skybridge Alignment is that it has a station to the east of the highway on the North Shore. I grew up over that way so I have a bit of bias, but one thing to consider is that all road and transit access to that area has to cross the highway at a narrow point between Keith and Main. Normally this is fine, but if it gets backed up the area becomes impassable. A station over that way would be an alternative that doesn't rely on crossing this choke point by road.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by waves

If there are other unique solutions I haven't thought of for Gilmore alignments that change this evaluation I'd be interested to hear them.

A Transfer at gilmore is more convenient for transfers coming from the north shore to Central Broadway (and vice versa) because it cuts 1 station off the trip. A transfer at Brentwood is more convenient for Metrotown to Lougheed transfers. I would expect that there are more north shore to broadway transfers than metrotown to lougheed transfers. Perhaps this new network study can confirm once it's released to the public.

However by far the biggest advantage of the Gilmore route is that it would require less tunneling and whatever tunelling is required can be accomodated with cut and cover methods in industrial and freeway areas. The willingdon route either requires a bored tunnel going underneath houses, or demolishing houses to make room for an elevated guideway or cut and cover tunnel. Both of these options will be more expensive than the gilmore route.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by scottN

The willingdon route either requires a bored tunnel going underneath houses, or demolishing houses to make room for an elevated guideway or cut and cover tunnel. Both of these options will be more expensive than the gilmore route.

Not really, there is a 'Linear Park' along Willingdon which provides ample room for a portal, and then cut and cover. Boring past there might not be as expensive as on Broadway, because you wouldn't be boring under a busy street that would require numerous traffic decks, utility changes, etc. It would be like boring that took place on the Evergreen Line.

The biggest problem, as I said before, with a Gilmore alignment, is it doesn't serve the people living in the area. It is on the very fringe of Brentwood, making the interchange less accessible for people leaving and going to the area. It's like putting the Metrotown interchange at Patterson.

A station at the PNE and the next at Gilmore is a distance of 2.75km (if it goes diagonally over Gilmore), which is a bit excessive. It's the same distance as Oakridge to Marine with no stations.

I think the extra expense of better serving North Burnaby with transit is worth it (of course depending on how expensive it would be).

[scottN]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Not really, there is a 'Linear Park' along Willingdon which provides ample room for a portal, and then cut and cover. Boring past there might not be as expensive as on Broadway, because you wouldn't be boring under a busy street that would require numerous traffic decks, utility changes, etc. It would be like boring that took place on the Evergreen Line.

Sure it can be cut and cover (or elevated) along willingdon, but the turns from willingdon to hastings, and then from hastings to the second narrows bridge require more space than is available in the street right of way. Cutting the corner on these turns requires either building demolitions to make room, or a deep bored tunnel to go under the existing buildings.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by scottN

Sure it can be cut and cover (or elevated) along willingdon, but the turns from willingdon to hastings, and then from hastings to the second narrows bridge require more space than is available in the street right of way. Cutting the corner on these turns requires either building demolitions to make room, or a deep bored tunnel to go under the existing buildings.

Not quite, I proposed Option 2 (the Parker Station is optional) which has less curves than Option 1, which I believe is basically the route you are proposing.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by scottN

Sure it can be cut and cover (or elevated) along willingdon, but the turns from willingdon to hastings, and then from hastings to the second narrows bridge require more space than is available in the street right of way. Cutting the corner on these turns requires either building demolitions to make room, or a deep bored tunnel to go under the existing buildings.

The sharpest turn on the SkyTrain lines (not including track in the various OMCs) is probably between Coquitlam Central and Lincoln. It would probably help clarify things if someone took that alignment and dropped it on top of various corners along the proposed Purple Line routes (Willington-Hastings and Hastings-SNB as two examples) to better show the sort of area an above-grade SkyTrain line would require to avoid existing buildings and infrastructure.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Not quite, I proposed Option 2 (the Parker Station is optional) which has less curves than Option 1, which I believe is basically the route you are proposing.

There's nothing at Willingdon & Parker other than single family homes. Why would we want a station there instead of at Willingdon & Hastings?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

The biggest problem, as I said before, with a Gilmore alignment, is it doesn't serve the people living in the area. It is on the very fringe of Brentwood, making the interchange less accessible for people leaving and going to the area. It's like putting the Metrotown interchange at Patterson.

Have you considered that Gilmore Station is also a density hub with significant developments underway and planned? Metrotown Station probably makes sense as a terminus because Metrotown is a major residential, commercial, and office hub that eclipses Patterson in basically every way. Brentwood doesn't exactly dwarf Gilmore; In fact if you were to measure the residential + commercial + office within 400m of each station right now (standard Translink unit, not mine), they're probably not too different.

A station at the PNE and the next at Gilmore is a distance of 2.75km (if it goes diagonally over Gilmore), which is a bit excessive. It's the same distance as Oakridge to Marine with no stations.

Burquitlam to Moody Centre is over 4km (!!) and the distance between the future 168th and 184th stations will be almost as far, so it's not outside the design limits of the Skytrain network.

I think the extra expense of better serving North Burnaby with transit is worth it (of course depending on how expensive it would be).

Remains to be seen. If Translink sees that they can run from the North Shore to Deer Lake all above ground it's probably a no brainer.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Have you considered that Gilmore Station is also a density hub with significant developments underway and planned? Metrotown Station probably makes sense as a terminus because Metrotown is a major residential, commercial, and office hub that eclipses Patterson in basically every way. Brentwood doesn't exactly dwarf Gilmore; In fact if you were to measure the residential + commercial + office within 400m of each station right now (standard Translink unit, not mine), they're probably not too different.

This is just a wrong statement. Gilmore is the edge of the neighbourhood. To the south is one block of mid-rise apartments, then Still Creek, then industrial and Hwy 1. To the west is more industrial/office park land and a massive substation. There are some apartments to the north, but there is also a massive cemetery. I doubt Burnaby plans on upzoning that land too.

Brentwood on the other hand is surrounded on all sides with massive developments, and lots that will become massive developments. Not to mention a developing mall, which will rival Metrotown Mall.

Brentwood absolutely eclipses Gilmore.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Burquitlam to Moody Centre is over 4km (!!) and the distance between the future 168th and 184th stations will be almost as far, so it's not outside the design limits of the Skytrain network.

Consider why that is the case. Burquitlam to Moody is a very steep area that is also presently low density with zero commercial, unlike Burnaby Heights. Burnaby Heights is a destination, not the slopes in between Burquitlam and Moody. There was no destination they missed in-between the two stations. (I would say an infill station at Douglas St would be worth exploring in the future though)

For your SLS reference, that would be because it is going through farmland. Come on.

Another disadvantage of Option 1, going along Hwy 1, is there are so many curves. There would be about 4, whereas Option 2 has much more gentle curves, the sharpest being going west of Willingdon towards the Second Narrows.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

There's nothing at Willingdon & Parker other than single family homes. Why would we want a station there instead of at Willingdon & Hastings?

It should be designed for the possibility of future infill, but it's not an area that is needed atm. I imagine having a station at Willingdon and Hastings would be much more expensive because it would require boring underneath along Hastings, and the route overall would become longer because it would be less direct. One at Gilmore would be in the heart of the neighbourhood, and provide a more direct route.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I can see it both ways - it's been spelled out pretty plainly over the last two decades of "regional centre" planning that Brentwood's the main event and Gilmore's just a sideshow.

Is that enough to offset the (potential) cost savings? We'll see. This, after all, isn't even an official TransLink-commissioned study. All we know right now is that they're definitely not doing 41st next.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

This is just a wrong statement. Gilmore is the edge of the neighbourhood. To the south is one block of mid-rise apartments, then Still Creek, then industrial and Hwy 1. To the west is more industrial/office park land and a massive substation. There are some apartments to the north, but there is also a massive cemetery. I doubt Burnaby plans on upzoning that land too.

Brentwood on the other hand is surrounded on all sides with massive developments, and lots that will become massive developments. Not to mention a developing mall, which will rival Metrotown Mall.

Brentwood absolutely eclipses Gilmore.

I'm not wrong, you're just extremely inconsistent. Everything you're saying can be applied to both potential stations. Brentwood is also limited by a cemetery, swaths of SFHs which will be upzoned by the provincial TOD requirements but likely won't be seeing highrises this generation, low rise (not mid rise) apartments to the east and southeast, and the Still Creek industrial lands. You also should not be so closed-minded to rigidly think that having a Gilmore Station connection won't give Burnaby a chance to consider development opportunities west of Gilmore. Substations can be buried if the economics make sense, and office parks can become office builds/mixed office residential. Cemeteries are bit harder to work with but the cemetery isn't even within 400m of the Skytrain Station.

Gilmore also has "massive developments, and lots that will become massive developments" surrounding it as well, or are you not up to speed with the Gilmore Place and Buchanan West plans? Quite frankly, the area immediately surrounding Gilmore Station is poised to be significantly denser than Brentwood in the coming years.

As I've mentioned previously, it's undeniable that Brentwood has a bit more ridership potential than Gilmore but to pretend that it eclipses Gilmore the way that Metrotown eclipses Patterson is unreasonable and pretty ridiculous.

Consider why that is the case. Burquitlam to Moody is a very steep area that is also presently low density with zero commercial, unlike Burnaby Heights. Burnaby Heights is a destination, not the slopes in between Burquitlam and Moody. There was no destination they missed in-between the two stations. (I would say an infill station at Douglas St would be worth exploring in the future though)

For your SLS reference, that would be because it is going through farmland. Come on.

Another disadvantage of Option 1, going along Hwy 1, is there are so many curves. There would be about 4, whereas Option 2 has much more gentle curves, the sharpest being going west of Willingdon towards the Second Narrows.

Oh come on. It doesn't matter what is in between stations once a line is completed. It's extremely inconsistent of you to say that it makes sense for Burquitlam to Port Moody to not have stations because "it's low density with zero commercial", yet advocate for a Parker station because "it should be designed for future infill." You can't have it both ways. Either it makes sense for Burquitlam to Port Moody to bypass a relatively uninteresting area for 4km the same way it makes sense for the Purple line to bypass a relatively uninteresting area for 2km, or it doesn't. Same for the SLS reference. Don't try to condescend when your points don't make sense.

And curves are not an issue whatsoever as long as they're gentle enough between stations to allow for making the turn at speed. You'll find that the Expo Line entering downtown and entering New West is extremely curvy. It's curvy because it follows existing RoWs to avoid tunnelling. That's what the Purple Line likely will do.