Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Waders

30-foot walkway? That must have included the walkway length inside the new building.

Thanks for the pics.
I guess there'll be a door on the mall side of the bridge (centred) but not on the station side (since there's a post in the middle).

[deasine]

I'm curious to see where they will put the fare gates. It probably won't be inside the mall given that it's not TransLink property, and while there is space, there isn't that much for ticket concourse space and the fare gates.

Then again, the ticket concourse area is in the mall development for New Westminster Station.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm curious to see where they will put the fare gates. It probably won't be inside the mall given that it's not TransLink property, and while there is space, there isn't that much for ticket concourse space and the fare gates.

Then again, the ticket concourse area is in the mall development for New Westminster Station.

Depends on whether Fairchild (Aberdeen) grants TransLink a Statutory Right of Way over that access area in the mall. I don;t see why not (think access through The Bay or The Hudson).
There would have to be obligations imposed on Fairchild regarding maintenace, opening, closing, no obstructions, accessibility, etc.

[Klazu]

I hope this wasn't already posted here: http://youtu.be/kQHRInkjJ58 Pretty neat video!

[DKaz]

Does anyone here remember the link to historic bus routes in Vancouver? I'm trying to find out about the old 333 Guildford/Vancouver.

[SpongeG]

for lazy people like me
• Video Link

[jlousa]

Here is what the city is considering for 2040, seems like the so called war on cars is going to accelerate. They are going from the 2020 goal of 50/50 car/other modeshare to 33/66.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20121030/documents/rr1.pdf

[nname]

Just glancing the document, and I found two items:

• Work with partners to deliver an underground Millennium Line extension serving the Broadway Corridor as a top regional priority.
• Advance a Downtown-False Creek-Arbutus streetcar service, through measures including (a) protecting rights-of-way and designing streets to accommodate the service; and (b) working with TransLink on a business case.

[jlousa]

There are some definate good items in the report, and I agree with most of it. Just feel it could be more balanced. It was interesting that they stated that the Lions Gate closure won't be happening as it was dependant on a 3rd crossing which is no longer in sight.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Here is what the city is considering for 2040, seems like the so called war on cars is going to accelerate. They are going from the 2020 goal of 50/50 car/other modeshare to 33/66.

http://former.vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20121030/documents/rr1.pdf

Here's what I think the city needs in order to achieve their 2040 goal. You'd need more than an Arbutus line and an M line extension down Broadway. A rapid transit line down 41st from UBC to Metrotown would be needed, as well as a rapid transit line along Victoria Drive or Knight Road, via Kingsway and then Main tying in at Waterfront, as well as a Hastings line. The overall network would be spread evenly throughout the city and put everyone within a short distance of a rapid transit station. A majority of the city would be within the 800m walking distance threshold for rrt, while the rest would be a short bus ride away.

[usog]

Originally Posted by logan5

Here's what I think the city needs in order to achieve their 2040 goal. You'd need more than an Arbutus line and an M line extension down Broadway. A rapid transit line down 41st from UBC to Metrotown would be needed, as well as a rapid transit line along Victoria Drive or Knight Road, via Kingsway and then Main tying in at Waterfront, as well as a Hastings line. The overall network would be spread evenly throughout the city and put everyone within a short distance of a rapid transit station. A majority of the city would be within the 800m walking distance threshold for rrt, while the rest would be a short bus ride away.

How do you propose to fund all of this? The only way this would be remotely possible in my view is if the city/translink directly got involved with property development around new/potential stations and using the proceeds for it ala MTR.



In other news, I stopped by Safeway at New West station on the way home from class and noticed there were congestion/crowding issues on the westbound platform. Is this new or has it always been like that?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by usog

How do you propose to fund all of this? The only way this would be remotely possible in my view is if the city/translink directly got involved with property development around new/potential stations and using the proceeds for it ala MTR.

I was just saying what I think the city needs to have in place in order to achieve there 2040 goal. A fairer question would be - are these goals achievable.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Here is what the city is considering for 2040, seems like the so called war on cars is going to accelerate. They are going from the 2020 goal of 50/50 car/other modeshare to 33/66.

Considering that at least I doubt many people can afford driving a car in 2040, 33/66 is actually quite a lot attention for those few. There won't be traffic jams in 2040. (I am a Downtown car owner and completely admit driving way too much. The local public transportation still doesn't offer such extensiveness that I was used to in Europe )

I would also like to see much more rail investments in the next 28 years than just SkyTrain extension to UBC and arbutus streetcar line. 41st, Knight and East Hastings will need something running on rails, preferably a streetcar.

I am happy to see that half of the Robson is at least considered being a pedestrian street. I'd like to see that happening as soon as possible.

[dreambrother808]

I thought someone said that Vision "killed" the streetcar idea?

Also, more people not driving their cars does not mean that you won't be able to drive yours.

[easy as pie]

i could imagine a rapid transit line down hastings as a harbinger not only for massive density increases but for a much-needed high-streeting. a very good long-term plan, particularly if the expected population increases do pan out.

[xd_1771]

Got a question. Does anyone here know if Paper 11 of the 1993 Transport 2021 (The Cost of Transporting People in the British Columbia Lower Mainland) is available anywhere for reading online? If not I'm making a trip into either Vancouver or Burnaby tomorrow to find it and take notes (Though it'd have been nice to be able to read it and refer to it from home).

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Considering that at least I doubt many people can afford driving a car in 2040, 33/66 is actually quite a lot attention for those few. There won't be traffic jams in 2040. (I am a Downtown car owner and completely admit driving way too much. The local public transportation still doesn't offer such extensiveness that I was used to in Europe )

I would also like to see much more rail investments in the next 28 years than just SkyTrain extension to UBC and arbutus streetcar line. 41st, Knight and East Hastings will need something running on rails, preferably a streetcar.

I am happy to see that half of the Robson is at least considered being a pedestrian street. I'd like to see that happening as soon as possible.

If it gets to that say hello to one crappy quality of life. You are talking about crippled mobility and flexibility, half our time, money and resources would be spent on duplicating services and just waste as a result of this. Only 3rd world countries can achieve these numbers. There is no prosperous region in the world that functions like this, there may be large cities within densely populated regions where people that are not familiar with the area may get the illusion, but it is nothing but a illusion and not reality when looking at these regions as a whole.

Why cant they continue to invest in to things that will make our lives better, increase our mobility, actually increase our quality of life for once? Why are we so hell bent on destroying what we have built and running our western society in to a brick wall?

Having said that yeah, I want transit as well, I want pedestrian friendly streets, all this, I want a balance. I don't want biased policies, I want policies focused on what they are supposed to be focused on, making our livs better and our cities better.

[Millennium2002]

Good question. I for one wish to see 49th Ave widened to two lanes per direction with turn bays at major intersections. It's not that I'm a fan of cars... but rather the fact that there's so much traffic that even the buses are delayed and the route mocked as the one most prone to pass-ups.

Unfortunately, I doubt that I'll see that happen with the current council... maybe a future one can implement more balanced and makes-sense policies like these. Transit is the way to go for the future, but there needs to be room for it too!

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by cornholio

If it gets to that say hello to one crappy quality of life. You are talking about crippled mobility and flexibility, half our time, money and resources would be spent on duplicating services and just waste as a result of this. Only 3rd world countries can achieve these numbers. There is no prosperous region in the world that functions like this, there may be large cities within densely populated regions where people that are not familiar with the area may get the illusion, but it is nothing but a illusion and not reality when looking at these regions as a whole.

Why cant they continue to invest in to things that will make our lives better, increase our mobility, actually increase our quality of life for once? Why are we so hell bent on destroying what we have built and running our western society in to a brick wall?

Having said that yeah, I want transit as well, I want pedestrian friendly streets, all this, I want a balance. I don't want biased policies, I want policies focused on what they are supposed to be focused on, making our livs better and our cities better.

I'm not sure I understand. You're saying no prosperous regions around the world can achieve 33/66 mode share? Hong Kong, New York, London, Tokyo? The quality of life might not be as nice as ours but that's what happens when you have a big city.

[Echowinds]

Originally Posted by cornholio

If it gets to that say hello to one crappy quality of life. You are talking about crippled mobility and flexibility, half our time, money and resources would be spent on duplicating services and just waste as a result of this. Only 3rd world countries can achieve these numbers. There is no prosperous region in the world that functions like this, there may be large cities within densely populated regions where people that are not familiar with the area may get the illusion, but it is nothing but a illusion and not reality when looking at these regions as a whole.

Why cant they continue to invest in to things that will make our lives better, increase our mobility, actually increase our quality of life for once? Why are we so hell bent on destroying what we have built and running our western society in to a brick wall?

Having said that yeah, I want transit as well, I want pedestrian friendly streets, all this, I want a balance. I don't want biased policies, I want policies focused on what they are supposed to be focused on, making our livs better and our cities better.

Plenty of non-developing cities in the world already around 66/33 or better.

http://ltaacademy.gov.sg/doc/J11Nov-p60PassengerTransportModeSHares.pdf