Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed

[MIPS]

I'm against light rail in place of the SkyTrain in high density and developing parts of the city (and you KNOW my opinion already on adding density to the west end) but the line is literally the only place where light rail would be perfect and not there just to spite our existing transit infrastructure with an incompatible stretch (hello Canada Line!) or through railforthevalley-level bias.

Hell, we're almost close to the point where a line from Marine Drive station all the way to Main Street - Science World is remotely possible.
Yet you want to make it a greenway for good, or opt for a subway and increased density. Yeah, okay. Lets not enjoy one of the best areas of the city.

[GMasterAres]

This is the configuration for nearly the entire stretch, completely grade-separated from road traffic. There's a total of 10 intersections along 11 klicks of track; 10 level crossings (with car barriers), overpasses and/or short tunnels is pretty inexpensive compared to one big, 11 km tunnel. We're not talking about the same straight-down-the-middle plan for Broadway; if built right, there's practically no chance of an N-sticker Corolla turning left into an oncoming train.

It's not grade separated. It has it's own ROW but grade-separated means no crossing of roads "at grade." It doesn't mean the tracks are on a road. So Arbutus is _NOT_ grade separated anywhere through the main portions of Vancouver. Also a quick Google count shows 37 at-grade crossings within a distance of 8.5km, not 10 along 11km so not sure where you got your numbers from but they are not correct at all.

I agree though likely no issue with cars turning into the tracks but it isn't as easy as people point it out and also I question where this line is going to connect to that warrants it more than current bus service. If it just goes from SW Marine to Granville, who is that serving? Even at a lower cost than a subway, that's a pretty expensive price tag to service a population already very well serviced by transit compared to the rest of the region. Unless of course the plan would be to use the line all the way out to Burnaby and Byrn Road area aka servicing the new River District.

I think only then could it remotely be justified but to handle that distance you'd likely need to twin the tracks which would not be trivial beyond 16th.

I do agree with those that say for this to even be considered we're talking 20-30 years in the future at this stage. Until then it is going to be made a bike and pedestrian path I fairly certain of that.

Also not sure what you're getting at with overpasses/underpasses. Trains can't climb more than about a 1.5% gradient and most LRT caps out at 6% (SkyTrain for example). You can't simply overpass them like a car, they need a long distance to raise. For example, for a train to raise from the Fraser River to the height of the Patullo Bridge requires 8+ km of track. To raise up high enough for vehicles to clear underneath you'd likely need a longer distance than is between any 2 crossing so you'd ultimately need to raise the entire corridor up which is basically SkyTrain if you used traditional LRT trains. If you used SkyTrain style LRT (Remember SkyTrain and Canada Line vehicles are just electric trains at the end of the day) that can do 6%, even that would be fairly tight between crossings beyond 16th and you'd likely need to elevate along that entire stretch or end up with a roller-coaster up and down situation which would be horrible for ridership.

Tunnels are no different, just the opposite. So only option with Arbutus is (1) build a tunnel or (2) train remains at-grade with level crossings at 37 points. Could you do a combo? Like say tunnel to beyond 16th then level train the rest of the way? Sure likely you could, but again I don't think it is as easy or cheap as people think. The cheap options I read about constantly are just regular standard LRT trains running at grade. Once you start talking twin track options or raising/tunneling, costs start to increase quickly. The geology along through that area would make tunneling expensive and they'd likely need to cut and cover to make costs remotely reasonable.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I'm against light rail in place of the SkyTrain in high density and developing parts of the city (and you KNOW my opinion already on adding density to the west end) but the line is literally the only place where light rail would be perfect and not there just to spite our existing transit infrastructure with an incompatible stretch (hello Canada Line!) or through railforthevalley-level bias.

Hell, we're almost close to the point where a line from Marine Drive station all the way to Main Street - Science World is remotely possible.
Yet you want to make it a greenway for good, or opt for a subway and increased density. Yeah, okay. Lets not enjoy one of the best areas of the city.

I 100% support them maintaining the ROW for future transit use and not simply converting it to a pedestrian/bike way. Do I think it will be maintained? Not in the least. But as much as I don't think transit down that stretch is warranted today given other regional priorities, I absolutely think it will become vital at some point in the future especially with development happening along the Fraser River and out toward New Westminster (re: River District as one example).

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Also not sure what you're getting at with overpasses/underpasses. Trains can't climb more than about a 1.5% gradient and most LRT caps out at 6% (SkyTrain for example). You can't simply overpass them like a car, they need a long distance to raise.

Pretty sure he meant have the roads go over/under the tracks.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Tunnels are no different, just the opposite. So only option with Arbutus is (1) build a tunnel or (2) train remains at-grade with level crossings at 37 points.

Or...you could easily close off about 60% of the at-grade crossings. Most are on low-traffic streets. That would reduce the crossings from the 37 you counted to 14. You could also have the train in an underpass on crossings such as King Edward and at 41st Ave.

[logicbomb]

Overheard some of the work that will be done.

Next month, CP will work to remove warning crossing signals, then they will remove the track, ties and ballast from N to S during the summer and fall. Any rails at any grade-crossing will be removed by the City. Also, the City has delayed work on the old False Creek Demo Line (rail removal was slated to occur this summer).

Final plans regarding the corridor may not be released until late 2017. Still awaiting what will happen north of West 4th.

[MIPS]

I absolutely think it will become vital at some point in the future especially with development happening along the Fraser River and out toward New Westminster (re: River District as one example).

Added on top of that CP has plans to abandon the RoW all the way to North Fraser Way. Including the now "greenified" RoW that would be a complete third transit connection out of downtown Vancouver which would serve the Vancouver/Burnaby/New West side of the river, intersect with the Broadway and Canada Lines, plus be able to integrate into the bus routes which connect to Expo Line stations up on the hill, giving riders far more options to move around. It's like the BCER route the Expo Line was built on, but through areas which are in the process of being redeveloped into higher density neighborhoods and there is still a fair amount of open land for further development. I seem to recall in one of the other threads we were trying to figure out an optimal change to the bus routes to serve the new homes on Marine Drive.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jhausner

It's not grade separated. It has it's own ROW but grade-separated means no crossing of roads "at grade." It doesn't mean the tracks are on a road. So Arbutus is _NOT_ grade separated anywhere through the main portions of Vancouver. Also a quick Google count shows 37 at-grade crossings within a distance of 8.5km, not 10 along 11km so not sure where you got your numbers from but they are not correct at all.

Serves me right for pulling my "facts" from VanCity Buzz without double-checking. Duly noted.

I agree though likely no issue with cars turning into the tracks but it isn't as easy as people point it out and also I question where this line is going to connect to that warrants it more than current bus service. If it just goes from SW Marine to Granville, who is that serving? Even at a lower cost than a subway, that's a pretty expensive price tag to service a population already very well serviced by transit compared to the rest of the region. Unless of course the plan would be to use the line all the way out to Burnaby and Byrn Road area aka servicing the new River District.

Or the City could connect it to the Downtown Streetcar proposal; light rail from Stanley Park to False Creek to Kerrisdale to Marpole sounds like a pretty easy sell. Or they could do both.

I think only then could it remotely be justified but to handle that distance you'd likely need to twin the tracks which would not be trivial beyond 16th.

I do agree with those that say for this to even be considered we're talking 20-30 years in the future at this stage. Until then it is going to be made a bike and pedestrian path I fairly certain of that.

Absolutely. But they should reserve some space for the tracks, which Vision's NOT planning to do; once you've given an 8m-wide bike lane/garden to the NIMBYs, trying to take it away will be a nightmare.

Originally Posted by Jebby

Pretty sure he meant have the roads go over/under the tracks.

I... actually meant the tracks. Even to me, 35 road over/underpasses for one rail line seems a bit unreasonable.

It's definitely impractical around OV/Kitsilano, but around the lone high-traffic intersections like 41st and SW Marine, there's at least 100m of straight track in both directions. Even with a 5% gradient, there's enough room for a short tunnel - or, if you get rid of the telephone and trolley wires, a short elevated section.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jhausner

It's not grade separated. It has it's own ROW but grade-separated means no crossing of roads "at grade." It doesn't mean the tracks are on a road. So Arbutus is _NOT_ grade separated anywhere through the main portions of Vancouver. Also a quick Google count shows 37 at-grade crossings within a distance of 8.5km, not 10 along 11km so not sure where you got your numbers from but they are not correct at all.

Rather than "grade-separated" I think he meant nearly "exclusive" RoW (compared to other north south routes, primarily south of 16h Ave, I would think, wherever there are "frontage" roads).
Just use of the wrong terminology.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Rather than "grade-separated" I think he meant nearly "exclusive" RoW (compared to other north south routes, primarily south of 16h Ave, I would think, wherever there are "frontage" roads).
Just use of the wrong terminology.

Yup, my fault. After years of Malcolm posts, I tend to associate "exclusive right of way" with "straight down the middle of the road."

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Absolutely. But they should reserve some space for the tracks, which Vision's NOT planning to do; once you've given an 8m-wide bike lane/garden to the NIMBYs, trying to take it away will be a nightmare.

The current crop of NIMBY's might scoff at the idea, but we're talking 30+ years away from now when most of them will be dead (harsh but true). Think how much Vancouver has changed since the early 80's.

In fact, it wasn't too long ago that people were adamantly against the Cambie Corridor Project, but we're seeing rapid densification along the corridor.

That said, it would have been probably best to relay or repair the tracks and grant TRAMS permission to use the corridor for a heritage streetcar line.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The current crop of NIMBY's might scoff at the idea, but we're talking 30+ years away from now when most of them will be dead (harsh but true). Think how much Vancouver has changed since the early 80's.

Right, but 30+ years later, you'll have a new generation that's used to their giant greenway, and don't want any reduction at all. It's the Circle of Gripes.

[MIPS]

The idea is you never give them what they want. They'll hate you until they're six feet under but it means we aren't painted into a corner later on.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by MIPS

The idea is you never give them what they want. They'll hate you until they're six feet under but it means we aren't painted into a corner later on.

Yes ... but think how old most of us will be.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by logan5

Using Translink's Surrey Rapid Transit study as a guide, a true BRT route along Arbutus could be had for 22.5 million/km x 11km (70th Ave. to Waterfront) = 247 million. A very low cost for a service that would run as fast as the Canada Line (note that Calgary's LRT runs at the same average speed as the CL).

A BRT system will never need upgrading to LRT as autonomous technology will give BRT heavy rail like capacity.

I actually think laying rails would be cheaper than converting the ROW to road space for BRT. The ROW from Marine to the Olympic village is well graded and pretty much load bearing ready for new rails.

In Surrey, the cost of the BRT might be low because most of the ROW is already paved. They would convert existing lanes on 104 ave to BRT without widening the road, and much of KGB already has shoulder space wide enough to accommodate the extra lanes. Configuring the roads for LRT would require a lot of work to be done to the existing roads.

I also think you would need more space for the BRT lanes than using modern Streetcar technology would take up. The BRT lanes would just be more paved land in Vancouver whereas the streetcar ROW could be grassed.

Operationally streetcars are very quiet, while operating diesel buses just ads to pollution. Streetcar vehicles can also have a much longer service life and on average can carry more people per operator than buses.

Originally Posted by Kisai

This is an argument that pro-streetcar/LRT people use all the time, and it makes their argument even less endearing. It's like saying "it will take 30 years to build one large school, let's just build portable classrooms in the parks which are closer until there are no more parks" just because that space is there, doesn't mean it has to be used today before there is a demand use for it.

I'd rather wait for the Subway and have it built right rather than cut off the entire , West Side, Kerrisdale, Point grey and Kitsilano neighbourhoods with Streetcar/LRT trains that cause traffic accidents.

It might be overly optimistic to have all of Metro Vancouver's rapid transit built within 60 years when other cities like NYC and London have had 114 and 153 years respectively to build out their systems.

That's a pretty bad analogy. So what you are saying is because you can't have a big huge school today that kids from all over the city would have to commute long distances to get to, you would rather have them not go to school at all until 3 generations later? Talk about a lost generation.

I guess your grandchildren will be pretty lucky compared to their uneducated parents.


And there IS demand along the Arbutus corridor. Just ride the 016, if you can.

And how does something like streetcar in a segregated ROW that only has 8 roads cross it south of 16th cut off the city any more than Arbutus street itself. It's illegal to cross a street mid block, but many segregated streetcar systems around the world allow you to cross anywhere. That's because the speeds are not as high as they are for typical light rail, and the trains themselves are smaller and lighter and can stop faster.

And don't confuse it for LRT on major roads (like C Train NE) where many turns into plazas, parking lots, and side streets have to be closed to cut down on accidents. The Arbutus ROW is already segregated like that, has been forever. Even if you did put Calgary style C-train on the Arbutus corridor it would be like the SW route. It wouldn't change the flow of traffic at all as it exists today except introduce a few more stops to cars (I can't think of a single spot where you would remove access or prohibit turns).

LRT on Fraser highway vs LRT on Arbutus ROW would be such completely different animals, you couldn't say they are the same, any more than you could say a lion is a house cat.

[swimmer_spe]

I wonder, after the Broadway line is constructed, will the demand go up or down.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That's a pretty bad analogy. So what you are saying is because you can't have a big huge school today that kids from all over the city would have to commute long distances to get to, you would rather have them not go to school at all until 3 generations later? Talk about a lost generation.

No, I said that to point out just because the land is available now, doesn't meant we have to camp the space with something that will take the space so nothing better can ever use it. Greenspace doesn't prevent it from being torn up, but there will be yet more garden squatters if something doesn't indicate the property line. If nothing is done, it becomes a homeless camp.

That ROW would either need to be dug 6 meters deep or raised 6 meters to go grade separate the road crossings, by which by that time you may as well just built a subway or skytrain extension to begin with. Half measures is how transit systems go bankrupt, and there is no doubt if something is built "now" that it would be a drain on transit funding. Remember the "Vancouver Downtown Historic Railway", Now it's gone and the rails are being ripped out. This is what will happen to the Arbutus line if a streetcar is run down it without a plan for it to break even. Some future city council will think it's a waste of expensive land or costs too much and start selling it off. Translink can't just buy it and sit on it either.


This is what everyone should be paying attention to at the next Municipal election, what the city council "thinks" they should be doing with the Arbutus line. If you hear development, run the other way.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

That said, it would have been probably best to relay or repair the tracks and grant TRAMS permission to use the corridor for a heritage streetcar line.

That's consistent with my view too -
start small, and gradually allow it to expand.

Even trams in London, UK are single track routes with dual track passing areas.

That's what should be done here.
(i.e. no use taking up more of the RoW than currently necessary.)
If double tracking is required later, lay a parallel track.


Have a look at this video of London Trams:

• Video Link

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Kisai

That ROW would either need to be dug 6 meters deep or raised 6 meters to go grade separate the road crossings, by which by that time you may as well just built a subway or skytrain extension to begin with.

Come on, we've spent the last two pages talking about how the exclusive right-of-way is just as good as grade separation.

I know I'm repeating myself, but the tracks are near-independent of the street network, easily isolated from vehicles where it isn't, and it connects a lot of neighbourhoods to a lot of destinations; in other words, it's one of the few corridors where LRT makes perfect sense. Why spend a billion on a unnecessary tunnel for a redundant Skytrain (which could be built down Dunbar, 41st, Marine or Willingdon instead) when a few level crossings and non-artery road closures for light rail will do just fine? Just because the Broadway/Surrey LRT pitches were bad ideas, doesn't mean all of them are.

Half measures is how transit systems go bankrupt, and there is no doubt if something is built "now" that it would be a drain on transit funding. Remember the "Vancouver Downtown Historic Railway", Now it's gone and the rails are being ripped out. This is what will happen to the Arbutus line if a streetcar is run down it without a plan for it to break even.

The Downtown Historic Railway is gone because scrap metal thieves made off with most of the overhead wire; before it closed, despite having only one Skytrain connection and two-and-a-half destinations (Granville Island, Olympic Village, Science World if you walked), it managed an average of 3,500 boardings daily.

Connect the tracks to the Skytrain stations at Main Street and Arbutus-Broadway, and high ridership is a guarantee. Extend them through Kerrisdale and Marpole to Marine Drive and through Chinatown and Coal Harbour to Waterfront and Stanley Park, and it'll more or less be a roomier B-Line. Plenty of riders, plenty of destinations, and 3-5 connections to all three Skytrain lines; Arbutus LRT can more than pay for itself.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Kisai

No, I said that to point out just because the land is available now, doesn't meant we have to camp the space with something that will take the space so nothing better can ever use it. Greenspace doesn't prevent it from being torn up, but there will be yet more garden squatters if something doesn't indicate the property line. If nothing is done, it becomes a homeless camp.

That ROW would either need to be dug 6 meters deep or raised 6 meters to go grade separate the road crossings, by which by that time you may as well just built a subway or skytrain extension to begin with. Half measures is how transit systems go bankrupt, and there is no doubt if something is built "now" that it would be a drain on transit funding. Remember the "Vancouver Downtown Historic Railway", Now it's gone and the rails are being ripped out. This is what will happen to the Arbutus line if a streetcar is run down it without a plan for it to break even. Some future city council will think it's a waste of expensive land or costs too much and start selling it off. Translink can't just buy it and sit on it either.


This is what everyone should be paying attention to at the next Municipal election, what the city council "thinks" they should be doing with the Arbutus line. If you hear development, run the other way.

I really think you said you wanted to not build schools in portables, even if you had to wait 30 years for a proper school to be built. That's what the words you wrote down mean when read.

And you don't have to grade separate the crossings. This isn't a trunk line carrying hundreds of thousands of passengers daily; there aren't trains passing every every 30 seconds. You need to grade separate Skytrain because it is so busy that you need trains every 70 seconds each way. But transit on the Arbutus corridor could probably get by with a streetcar ever 7 to 10 minutes each way at peak times. You don't need grade separated crossings for that amount of traffic.

The downtown historic railway wasn't a half measure, it was a 1/100th measure. It was somewhat successful as a tourist attraction in the days before the Olympic Village when the tracks ran from Science World to Granville Island and they constantly ran 2 different trains. I rode it several times back then, and it always had people on it.

But being out of service for several years, then running from a station a good distance from the street with low visibility from passing traffic, with zero advertising nor support from city hall, and being the target of metal thieves, plus having a volunteer staff that was starting to get much too old to run a business, doesn't bring success. Neither does a service with a sporadic service on weekends (ending by 5pm) for part of the year make a transit service. It was a rolling museum, not a transit line.

When it was a transit line during the Olympics, it was very successful. Even during the low period between the games on a weekday in March it had more riders (between 2 stations) than the 50 gets on a summer weekend (route wide).

As for a business case, there is one: it's called Kerrisdale. It's a concentrated grouping of high density homes. The Kerrisdale neighborhood actually has a higher population than Oakridge. It's also home to a larger employed workforce, with 50% of workers commuting away from home inside the city (compared to 43% in the smaller workforce in Oakridge). Transit mode share in Kerrisdale is 22% and with a relatively high average income, there is probably a lot of demand for transit that's better than the very overcrowded 016. The 016, during the afternoon rush hour has an average capacity utilization of 288% (the highest in the system) while having the 4th highest annual service hours.

As for a further business case, look at the outrageous property values in the area. The only way that kind of investment in property is sustainable is if the properties are used for redevelopment. Either you are going to end up with properties just getting larger and larger detached homes on them and being traded between millionaires, or you can encourage their redevelopment into multi-family. Arbutus street can be the next Main or Fraser.

And you can't wait 30 years to do that.