Transit Fantasies

[Zassk]

^ From the information in recent posts, it appears that the grade under Burrard Inlet is not an issue for technology, and any rail could be routed under the water - including commuter rail. (I believe all of the rail technologies could handle 7-8% grade.)

[twoNeurons]

East Hastings is just rife for proper density. Some decent sized low-rises there would have some nice water views too.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I remember there were some sort of concept plans thrown out in the past regarding extending a rapid transit line to the North Shore and paying for it by using the fill from tunnel boring to create a new island/land reclamation near downtown and developing it.

The depth is not great near downtown and even now after coal harbor has been developed there is still potential east of Canada place (assuming the port gets on board) to reclaim a good chunk of land worth possibly billion, right in the heart of downtown and the main transportation hub I should add. View cones would be minimal and all residential areas south of it are cut of from the Burrard inlet and views would be minimally impacted. Obviously though the activists would complain about something but what can you do.

I think if any current line would be extended to the north shore it would have to be the expo line being extended since skytrain can handle steeper grades and is better aligned to be extended. But I would think some other technology would be needed to bridge the gap with a transfer at both ends, maybe a floating/anchored tunnel with vehicles that can handle the sway? Maybe a underwater gondola/tether system along which some vehicle can propel?

I know this is the fantasy thread, but a billion dollars is a tad optimistic. At 40 million an acre, which is pretty high, it would take 25 acres to raise $1bn. That would be a strip of land 200 m wide and half a km long.

I do like the idea though, the area between the port and portside park could use some infill.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Vancouver,+...,-97.15369&sspn=43.698891,79.013672&z=16

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I do like the idea though, the area between the port and portside park could use some infill.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Vancouver,+...,-97.15369&sspn=43.698891,79.013672&z=16

Umm... I hope you know that there is a fisheries located in the area that you want filled... and I'm not sure whether the building that houses it is even historic or not. =S

[Political_R]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ From the information in recent posts, it appears that the grade under Burrard Inlet is not an issue for technology, and any rail could be routed under the water - including commuter rail. (I believe all of the rail technologies could handle 7-8% grade.)

Any rail would have to be electrified. I think 7-8% is just a bit too high. I know they have a rail line in the Swiss Alps that has that kind of grade, but that is all I know of. I am not sure if a Metro line could do it.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Umm... I hope you know that there is a fisheries located in the area that you want filled... and I'm not sure whether the building that houses it is even historic or not. =S

What do you mean there is a fisheries?

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I know this is the fantasy thread, but a billion dollars is a tad optimistic. At 40 million an acre, which is pretty high, it would take 25 acres to raise $1bn. That would be a strip of land 200 m wide and half a km long.

I do like the idea though, the area between the port and portside park could use some infill.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Vancouver,+...,-97.15369&sspn=43.698891,79.013672&z=16

Or 250 by 400. Really, it isn't that big of a plot of land. But even then, I don't think the new land would be expected to pay for the tunnel completely.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Political_R

Any rail would have to be electrified. I think 7-8% is just a bit too high. I know they have a rail line in the Swiss Alps that has that kind of grade, but that is all I know of. I am not sure if a Metro line could do it.

The tunnel under False Creek was built at a grade of 5.5% on both sides. The maximum depth was 25m below sea level.

[twoNeurons]

I think a 4km bridge is more realistic than tunneling underneath.

[LeftCoaster]

Since everyone seems hung up on the Burrard Tunnel how about something like this that would certainly be feasible from an engineering standpoint:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I adjusted the arbutus line to curve when it hits downtown, the opposite curve of the expo line, and extend along georgia, hitting a few more stops before turning right and going under the inlet much closer to first narrows.

I like it a lot less but if it is truly impossible to bore down at the grade required to get below burrard inlet than it goes from being a fantasy to an impossibility. I dont want to get bogged down in plausibility but if something is actually not possible I want to adjust my map.

[Zassk]

^^^ From the depth charts on earlier pages, isn't the narrow part of the inlet also the steepest and deepest? It would seem to me that a tunnel needs to be on the flattest part of the inlet, not the narrowest.

[LeftCoaster]

^Actually if you look at the map, to the west of Deadman's Island it gets very shallow very fast.


Source: Canadian Marine Multibeam Bathymetric Data WMS, mapped with Quantum GIS

[GMasterAres]

My transit fantasy right now is that it can start making a profit and not sporting a net loss of 50% requiring other funding sources such as subsidies. The transit system in metro Vancouver needs to be paid for by the transit system itself.

Once that is solved then there is no reason why all the other fantasies in this thread can't happen because we won't be running around looking for 49 new taxes to drop on everyone to pay for a 2KM stretch of transit.

[logan5]

I wonder how much some Vancouver routes are subsidized. The Main bus for example, an always packed articulated bus must be somewhat close to breaking even. So if all municipalities were as dense as Vancouver we'd be a lot better off.

Vancouver must be by far the biggest contributor to the transit pot.

[GMasterAres]

I actually have my doubts on that. Without any evidence though and simply going by logic, a full bus paying 1 zone fair makes a heck of a lot less money than a Skytrain full of people paying 3 zone fairs. Then again it probably costs less to run than that same SkyTrain but who knows.

Also add to that a lot of students bringing down the price.

Ultimately though the facts are that for the entire Revenue pool, 30% comes from Transit and in the Expense pool, 60% goes to Transit. That means for every $1 they make from transit fairs they spend $2 getting that dollar to its destination. If I went to my manager and told him I want to spend $20,000 to save us $10,000 I'd be out of a job. Yet Transit in BC seems to be fine with functioning that way.

Don't think density is the entire issue. Don't know what the answer is either since I don't work for Translink nor know the particulars of the expenses. But this is why our transit takes 20 years to build. If we weren't getting the Olympics I doubt we would have a Canada Line even.

[LeftCoaster]

Is there a transit system in the world that is unsubsidized yet turns a profit? I can't imagine there is?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Is there a transit system in the world that is unsubsidized yet turns a profit? I can't imagine there is?

Numerous in Asia do. The system in Hong Kong. Several in Japan. I agree it is rare but I think looking at how they do it would be a good thing. I know in Hong Kong they turn a fair amount of profit through real estate either through owning the land around the stations. And yes many of those areas have greater populations and densities but our transit system is widely used so there is no excuse to be so far off in profitability. Maybe it is because they keep building SkyTrain everywhere. While I like the technology maybe it is time to look for cheaper solutions that can pay the same rate to bring closer the disparity. Or maybe TransLink itself needs to shrink so it can better focus on a single area and its own business interests.

Many other systems are also a lot smarter in the way they do their fairs. Frequent users tend to pay more to use the transit system than infrequent users which is quite the opposite in Metro Vancouver given buying those little ticket booklets or buying a pass is often quite a bit cheaper than paying day-to-day for fairs. Hopefully this new Compass Card will start to bump profits higher.

[golog]

http://www.mapnificent.net/

Visualize transit travel times with interactive googlemap

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Since everyone seems hung up on the Burrard Tunnel how about something like this that would certainly be feasible from an engineering standpoint:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I adjusted the arbutus line to curve when it hits downtown, the opposite curve of the expo line, and extend along georgia, hitting a few more stops before turning right and going under the inlet much closer to first narrows.

I like it a lot less but if it is truly impossible to bore down at the grade required to get below burrard inlet than it goes from being a fantasy to an impossibility. I dont want to get bogged down in plausibility but if something is actually not possible I want to adjust my map.

If you want to alter your tunnel, why not build it from the East instead of West?

In the priority order of things, I can see East Vancouver requiring more rapid transit sooner than the North Shore. Many parts just east of the DTES are ripe for densification, with lot prices far exceeding what any rational person should want to pay to live in East Van. Soon, the only parties willing to pay the price will be developers. It might not end up being a direct extension of downtown with condo towers galore, but perhaps more like Europe. I can easily see all the SFHs in the east side replaced with low rise condo buildings and row homes in the near future. This would fuel the requirement for rapid transit down Hastings to replace the almost dozen overcrowded bus routes on the corridor.

As a fantasy, I would extend the Expo Line east down East Hastings into Burnaby (from there you could send it down Willingdon to BCIT and Metrotown or to SFU). This would fuel growth in Vancouver and Burnaby, and extend the business district into the DTES. Already Gastown is a popular location for offices, and with little room to expand office space to the West, growing the CBD to the east makes sense. Extending the Expo line will take commuters from the region on the Expo line, through downtown to these new destinations in the DTES, without an extra transfer (and the same for commuters from Hastings corridor going to Burrard or Granville).

After that is built, at around Heatley Ave you can branch the line. Tunnel under Ballantyne pier (where a station could help fuel our cruise ship industry, and get port employees to work), and north to the North Shore. The tunnel would emerge near where Low Level Road ends.

This tunnel would be shorter and shallower than a direct connection between Lonsdale and Waterfront, and allow a greater footprint for source/destination points. This would allow for a station or two to be along the new Waterfront area of the North Shore before turning up Lonsdale Ave. And because it is Skytrain with LIM technology, it can handle the steeper grades that might be required. And even though the distance traveled between Lonsdale and Waterfront is greater, the total trip would probably take less time (especially if you count transfer/wait time for trips beyond those 2 points).

The added benefit of the Branch is that it allows you to send the most trains possible through downtown while cutting the number of trains going down Hastings and the North Shore (where demand won't be as high). Travelers from the North Shore will also have more destinations to chose from, so if they work in the DTES, Gastown, CBD or Granville areas, they have a transferless ride, and never have to make more than 1 Transfer to get anywhere else (transfer at Heatley to head east on Hastings, at Waterfront to Canada Line (or WCE), or at Commercial to Millennium/Broadway).



For an option without tunnels, a circle line could always be built (probably with LRT) that could cross using a transit dedicated Lions Gate Bridge (to extend its life and spare it from the wrecking ball), through Lower Lonsdale, and east to a new Second Narrow crossing built to incorporate light rail. From there you could head back West down Hastings providing the corridor with needed rapid transit, or SE to link with the existing Millenium line and protentially to BCIT and Metrotown. Then have separate bus and/or light rail lines on the North shore feeding this trunk line. You could also keep running a premium priced seabus line that would still be popular with tourists and people making a direct Lonsdale to Waterfront area commute.

[nname]

Like I said before, the main issue is not the grade of the harbour crossing (which is build-able within the 5.5% grade limit given unlimited funding - well.. my guess is probably around 1 billion dollars).. The main issue is the steep grade of Lonsdale Avenue south of 13 St and north of 29 St. The grade of that segment is in excess of 10%, which is far too steep even for LIM technology. Remember, you also have to put stations along the slope, so unless your train can handle ~15% grade, a straight route up Lonsdale is not possible.