Transit Fantasies - Page 172

chowhou · #**3421** Posted **May 31, 2024, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahdede

Well this looks awfully familiar

Oops, yoinked! Yeah the line of thought about Translink prioritizing elevated guideways over below grade in the BIRT thread got me thinking about potential non-tunnelled routes and I realized that the Boundary Road overhead lines are only 230kV meaning they're not difficult to underground at all. I did a tiny bit of research and almost instantly found the BCUC response to Burnaby and Vancouver. If the guideway can be run above ground, that solves almost all of the contentions I had with your original post and the best route in my eyes converges on your alignment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chowhou

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

1. The harbour crossing
...
2. The tunnel
...
3. OMC access
...
4. Future growth
...

If it wasn't for these concerns, Boundary does actually look a bit more appealing than Gilmore, since the Burnaby Heights tunnel could actually have its south portal at Boundary and Francis for an even cheaper and faster project.

The only issue out of these four that isn't solved is the future growth issue along Boundary, but honestly no route between Hastings and Lougheed has a real "great" station location. Boundary is certainly worse than both Gilmore and Willingdon, but if it's built above grade then it shouldn't be difficult to build an infill station in the future if needed unlike on Gilmore and Willingdon.

BaddieB · #**3422** Posted **May 31, 2024, 8:17 PM**

I'm not sure, but the BCIT lands to the south make the most sense for an OMC. It could be dug deeper and designed to be covered later.

Migrant_Coconut · #**3423** Posted **May 31, 2024, 8:21 PM**

That's the same mistake I made - BCIT's got something else in mind for that space.

officedweller · #**3424** Posted **May 31, 2024, 9:12 PM**

One comment is that the diagonal alignment from Boundary to Gilmore, etc. even if elevated, needs to minimize impact on the riparian right-of-way in those areas - that diagonal is, I think, a creek bed.

BaddieB · #**3425** Posted **May 31, 2024, 9:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's the same mistake I made - BCIT's got something else in mind for that space.

They can still expand there if the OMC is designed in a way where it can be built on top of. There could also be a partnership between BCIT and the OMC.

CB-Thompson · #**3426** Posted **May 31, 2024, 9:39 PM**

Since we're solidly into fantasy territory here, could we avoid a full-sized OMC altogether by building parallel tracks, switches, and a cross-platform transfer at Brentwood and running on Beta Avenue south of Lougheed? This would involve adding in switches like we are at Braid and likely the gas station and TD bank lots to make the turn north onto Willingdon, but it means you're only dealing with storage and minor maintenance instead of a full OMC.

FarmerHaight · #**3427** Posted **Jun 1, 2024, 11:38 PM**

Moving the fantasy discussions here so the BIRT thread can remain free for discussions of actual news related to past and future studies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's also precedent for avoiding an expensive underground transfer station when the Dunsmuir Station was deleted from the Canada Line, leaving the only transfer between Canada Line and Expo Line at Waterfront Station.

This may be good precedent, but it certainly isn't a shining example of cutting corners not having negative consequences decades after the fact. Transfers between the Expo and Canada Line are quite bad at Granville.

For someone travelling from Metrotown to YVR, they're looking at 44 minutes of train time and 5-10 minutes of transferring between the two. That's makes the trip 10%-20% longer! And for a traveler who is unfamiliar with the stations and carrying luggage, it may take even longer! And that's ignoring the fact that a direct transfer at Dunsmuir would have eliminated an extra three minutes of travel between Granville and Waterfront for Expo passengers.

These small details may seem trivial, but multiply them by thousands of passengers over decades, and suddenly the impact of doing the easy thing is quite large. The Canada Line would be substantially more useful with the City Centre station bumped northward directly overtop of Granville, and an additional station near, say, Granville and Nelson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Even then, how would a station on the corner there work if it's curving there? Perhaps if they cut and cover along Albert instead of Hastings.

Perhaps the land isn't for a Purple Line station, and is instead meant to be the space needed to turn the elevated guideway 90 degrees. Or perhaps that land isn't meant to be used for the Purple Line at all, despite the city's explanation, and is reserved for a future Hastings Line (elevated or underground) stop.

chowhou · #**3428** Posted **Jun 2, 2024, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB-Thompson

Since we're solidly into fantasy territory here, could we avoid a full-sized OMC altogether by building parallel tracks, switches, and a cross-platform transfer at Brentwood and running on Beta Avenue south of Lougheed? This would involve adding in switches like we are at Braid and likely the gas station and TD bank lots to make the turn north onto Willingdon, but it means you're only dealing with storage and minor maintenance instead of a full OMC.

Actually if Translink connects the lines at Gilmore Station and uses the Chubb Creek/Still Creek route there's a relatively trivial connection that can be made by having the Milllennium Line guideway running along the CN rail RoW split at Gilmore and merge with the Purple Line somewhere along Still Creek (even if it's just a single direction connection). Although the Purple Line would be "exceptionally elevated" at Gilmore, by the time it reaches Still Creek it should be descending so it shouldn't be too difficult for the connecting guideway to match grades.

Regardless, even if we can connect the two lines together, I'm not convinced that OMC1/2, 3 or the future 4 and 5 will be sufficient to maintain the Purple Line. The trend currently seems to be that every new Millennium Line/Expo Line extension is paired with a new OMC yard (Evergreen -> OMC3, Broadway -> OMC4, SLS -> OMC5(?)). I highly doubt there's sufficient extra capcity in the OMCs to suddenly start maintaining an entire new line. OMC4 certainly seems to be designed for much more than the Broadway Extension can use up, but given that the UBCx is effectively a given, I would not be surprised if the capacity there is earmarked for that extension.

I think it's a relatively safe bet that there has to be an OMC somewhere on this line. Bear in mind that the BTC north and south lots combined are actually smaller than the OMC1 railyard so it's not even *that* much space.

chowhou · #**3429** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 1:00 AM**

Just thought I'd stir the pot a little here, I came across a McGill Masters' student's report published last year comparing North Shore Skytrain alignments. A pretty cool little paper that tries to quantify which alignment would be best by calculating the sums of improved accessibility scores to certain key opportunities. The "optimal" alignments provided are probably not feasible from an engineering perspective (having the Skytrain run up Lonsdale apparently gets really good scores), but if we ignore those, according to their independent (?) analysis an alignment in the vicinity of the purple line is apparently the way to go!

-Credit Samuel F. Tomkins

Migrant_Coconut · #**3430** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 4:43 AM**

Looks like a spur to Upper Lonsdale should be on the list, then... somehow.

madog222 · #**3431** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Looks like a spur to Upper Lonsdale should be on the list, then... somehow.

A Stoosbahn!

BaddieB · #**3432** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 12:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Moved from housing policies

And a second short tunnel (1,200m from Still Creek to Brentlawn Drive) may be necessary from the TCH past TAB considering the Millennium Line guideway is already clogging up that space. .

Not actually. You could elevate over the M Line. It would be a big arch, but nothing unheard of, the Expo Line already does something similar over the M line already. Tunnelling should be kept to a minimum and it should be elevated from Deer Lake Pkwy to Hastings, at least.

BaddieB · #**3433** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 3:07 PM**

deleted

mcj · #**3434** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

A Stoosbahn!

A funicular up Lonsdale is exactly the fantasy transit I want to see haha

(It could actually work though in the right scenario, and would provide that Seabus to 3rd link for the East-West Skytrain)

Might I also propose a similar funicular up 8th Street in New West connecting Uptown with Downtown. And one in Port Moody to connect the Woodland Park area to the future Queens Street station. Maybe one in White Rock too to connect the beach with the future BRT terminus. The possibilities are endless!

chowhou · #**3435** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcj

A funicular up Lonsdale is exactly the fantasy transit I want to see haha

Would Lonsdale really require a funicular for its grade? I mean, a streetcar ran up Lonsdale in the past I don't know why it couldn't run up Lonsdale nowadays (or beneath?)

MalcolmTucker · #**3436** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

A Stoosbahn!

Don't even need something so specialized. a 6.6% grade is totally possible with a low floor LRT. Of course, accessible stations would be another matter, pushing the average grade higher than 3%.

mcj · #**3437** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

-snip-

What software did you use there? Seems like a great tool for fantasy transit planning

mcj · #**3438** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chowhou

Would Lonsdale really require a funicular for its grade? I mean, a streetcar ran up Lonsdale in the past I don't know why it couldn't run up Lonsdale nowadays (or beneath?)

Get Dianne Watts on the case!

MalcolmTucker · #**3439** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcj

What software did you use there? Seems like a great tool for fantasy transit planning

It's a custom free GIS tool for the City of Calgary, but since the basemap is world wide, you can use it for things like this.

https://maps.calgary.ca/3ddigitalcalgary/

mcj · #**3440** Posted **Jun 20, 2024, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It's a custom free GIS tool for the City of Calgary, but since the basemap is world wide, you can use it for things like this.

https://maps.calgary.ca/3ddigitalcalgary/

Awesome! Thank you for this!

I do notice the slope is in degrees and not % gradient, so a 3 degree average slope for Lonsdale is a 5.2% grade, with a 6.6 degree max being 11.6%. Probably a bit steep for an off the shelf LRT/Streetcar, but possible some modern interpretation of the historical one.