Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Current network seems large enough to me - definitely larger than the SkyTrain network

We were talking about dedicated bike lanes taking space from cars. There's none of that outside the downtown core, and even downtown the lanes take away parking and not travel lanes for the vast majority.

But you'll never be convinced so why bother?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Having bikes, pedestrians and streetcars sharing the Corridor is definitely the best solution, but there's concern that a loud minority of cyclists are wanting to have the entire 10-20m width all to themselves - and that City Council might be coming around to their side of the argument.

If we ever get to the point that the volume of transit riders in the Arbutus corridor justify putting in something more than the existing trolley line, I find it pretty hard to believe that the ROW wouldn't be used. Personally I think it would be a lot more effective for a transit line to be elevated or buried, and in either of those cases it will take minimal space away from other users.

But we're talking about at least a few decades from now. There are so many other higher priority transit needs that have to be built first that this isn't even going to be in the next room, let alone "on the table", for quite some time.

The City has done the right thing by buying the land so that it won't be developed into more condos. That's the scenario that would have precluded transit use, not an inexpensive asphalt greenway that could easily be ripped up and moved over to accommodate something else.

[logan5]

I'd say there's a good chance that the City will implement a Cambie Corridor type plan for Arbutus, so maybe we'll see LRT along Arbutus sooner than expected.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

...there's concern that a loud minority of cyclists are wanting to have the entire 10-20m width all to themselves.

Worry all you want, that's utter nonsense and no one has ever suggested such an absurd thing.

[swimmer_spe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_trail#Trails_to_rails

This is why turning it to a greenway can be a good thing. We are railbanking for the future.
"Trails to rails

Though rare, there are several cases in which trails convert back to active railroads. One example occurred in 2012 in Clarence, Pennsylvania, where the R.J. Corman Railroad Company received permission to rebuild 20 miles (32 km) to serve a landfill. Conrail had abandoned the line in 1990, and 10 miles (16 km) had since been conveyed to the Snow Shoe Rails to Trails"

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We were talking about dedicated bike lanes taking space from cars. There's none of that outside the downtown core, and even downtown the lanes take away parking and not travel lanes for the vast majority.

^ Apologies. I interpreted that as "so which streets downtown should get bike lanes in the future?" To that, I answered that downtown's already pretty bike-friendly as it is.

Outside of downtown, lanes don't get closed. Instead they close intersections. That often creates problems.



Take Cypress at West 4th. Due to upgrading of the existing bike lane, north-south traffic now has to detour into that back alley to either Burrard or Maple, and east-west traffic has to go straight. In practice, between everybody coming down Cypress, up 4th, through the alley or out of the gas station, that back alley is now often as crowded as a regular intersection. Even more so if the construction on Burrard blocks one end, a garbage truck blocks the other, and everybody has to sit idle until all eleven dumpsters are cleared.

Ditto Burrard Bridge. The existing bike lanes aren't a problem, but they see 4 or 5 cyclists a minute at most. No need to close off the turning lanes, reassign two regular lanes for right-turners, and make them wait at the red light - that will definitely increase gridlock.


Inside downtown, I'll admit that the City's done alright with putting most of the bike lanes on Hornby, Richards and other side streets, which is safely out of the way of the traffic on the arterials. But you're wrong on the parking lanes, because they're still there - you can see even the metres all lined up along the outside curb of the bike lane.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But you'll never be convinced so why bother?

Please, nobody on this forum has ever changed anybody else's mind on anything. Doesn't stop any of us from posting, does it?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If we ever get to the point that the volume of transit riders in the Arbutus corridor justify putting in something more than the existing trolley line, I find it pretty hard to believe that the ROW wouldn't be used. Personally I think it would be a lot more effective for a transit line to be elevated or buried, and in either of those cases it will take minimal space away from other users.

In a nutshell, LRT makes sense because there's so relatively few major intersections on the traffic-independent ROW that it might as well be elevated or buried. Plus it's definitely not going to be RRT, since it's only 2km from the Canada Line (as swimmer keeps pointing out) and since TransLink's got other places to build a Skytrain for the next 30+ years.

The City has done the right thing by buying the land so that it won't be developed into more condos. That's the scenario that would have precluded transit use, not an inexpensive asphalt greenway that could easily be ripped up and moved over to accommodate something else.

Wish I shared your optimism. While I'm glad condos are no longer an option, cyclists are a major part of Vision's base... and now that the City owns the Corridor, they're directly responsible for clearing it, not CP.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In a nutshell, LRT makes sense because there's so relatively few major intersections on the traffic-independent ROW that it might as well be elevated or buried. Plus it's definitely not going to be RRT, since it's only 2km from the Canada Line (as swimmer keeps pointing out) and since TransLink's got other places to build a Skytrain for the next 30+ years.

My point was that there won't be a need for anything more than buses for those 30+ years. Arbutus is nowhere near Broadway in terms of passenger load, and it'll take volumes approaching that kind of level before the buses become inadequate.

And by the time that happens, the Canada Line may well be near enough capacity that Arbutus would make sense as a relief line. It seems very short sighted to build LRT there because the relatively small capacity increase over buses means it would just be a stopgap measure - essentially it would be money down the drain.

But it's really outside our current planning horizon - enough for now that the right of way has been preserved. Let the next generation worry about how best to utilize it.

While I'm glad condos are no longer an option, cyclists are a major part of Vision's base... and now that the City owns the Corridor, they're directly responsible for clearing it, not CP.

Our whole region is riddled with corridors shared between greenways and transit, so I'm a bit mystified why you think the Arbutus corridor has to be any different.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

My point was that there won't be a need for anything more than buses for those 30+ years. Arbutus is nowhere near Broadway in terms of passenger load, and it'll take volumes approaching that kind of level before the buses become inadequate.

And by the time that happens, the Canada Line may well be near enough capacity that Arbutus would make sense as a relief line. It seems very short sighted to build LRT there because the relatively small capacity increase over buses means it would just be a stopgap measure - essentially it would be money down the drain.

Two problems with that argument, both brought up about a month or two ago.

The first is that the Corridor will be densifying; Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Marpole, the soon to be ex-mall near King Edward, they're all getting mixed-use rises and townhouses along Arbutus over the next few years. The #16 might reach capacity sooner than you think - and a B-Line would basically be a tram on wheels and fighting with traffic.

Second, Skytrain is meant to connect Metro Vancouver and its various townships by shuttling a lot of people from Point A to Point B as fast as possible - in the Canada Line's case, YVR, Richmond and everything in between - maybe even Delta one day. For that reason alone, it's always going to be a better option to upgrade it (larger stations, longer trains like with the Expo right now) than build a relief Skytrain line next door.
It also puts a higher priority on a potential line for 41st (UBC to Burnaby/Coquitlam), Willingdon (River District to Hastings/Second Narrows) or Hastings line (East Van to Downtown/First Narrows) over Arbutus (False Creek to... Marpole?).

The Catch-22 with the corridor is basically that it'll be too dense for just buses, but not dense or important enough for a Skytrain. But you don't need fast rapid transit when you're just connecting a few neighbourhoods to each other and to the main Skytrain backbone - slow rapid transit works just fine.
There's also the added benefit of combining it with the planned Downtown Streetcar - a line that includes Stanley Park, Coal Harbour, Waterfront, Gastown, Chinatown, Main Street/Science World, Olympic Village, Granville Island, Kitsilano, Kerrisdale and Marpole, plus five connections to all three Skytrain lines? Sounds like a win to me.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Catch-22 with the corridor is basically that it'll be too dense for just buses, but not dense or important enough for a Skytrain. But you don't need fast rapid transit when you're just connecting a few neighbourhoods to each other and to the main Skytrain backbone - slow rapid transit works just fine.

I hope I don't live to see the day where we start spending money on a third transit mode that's slower and less frequent than Skytrain and has little more incremental capacity than buses. Although I don't really wish LRT on Surrey, if they jump in first then at least we'll all get to see what a poor solution it is for people whose expectations have been set by Skytrain.

And as far as I'm concerned the entire Downtown Streetcar concept is just a stupid ploy to get hapless taxpayers to fund a tourist attraction.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Outside of downtown, lanes don't get closed. Instead they close intersections. That often creates problems.

Take Cypress at West 4th. Due to upgrading of the existing bike lane, north-south traffic now has to detour into that back alley to either Burrard or Maple, and east-west traffic has to go straight. In practice, between everybody coming down Cypress, up 4th, through the alley or out of the gas station, that back alley is now often as crowded as a regular intersection. Even more so if the construction on Burrard blocks one end, a garbage truck blocks the other, and everybody has to sit idle until all eleven dumpsters are cleared.

So they should. Cypress is not an arterial. Excess intersections crossing 4th Ave slow the hole thing down.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Ditto Burrard Bridge. The existing bike lanes aren't a problem, but they see 4 or 5 cyclists a minute at most. No need to close off the turning lanes, reassign two regular lanes for right-turners, and make them wait at the red light - that will definitely increase gridlock.


Inside downtown, I'll admit that the City's done alright with putting most of the bike lanes on Hornby, Richards and other side streets, which is safely out of the way of the traffic on the arterials. But you're wrong on the parking lanes, because they're still there - you can see even the metres all lined up along the outside curb of the bike lane.

I'm confused. Would you make any changes to Burrard given the power to do so today?

I think the intersection improvements on the south side have improved traffic for all, and the north side should do the same.

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

....---

Please, nobody on this forum has ever changed anybody else's mind on anything. .....

Off topic but I disagree. I was going to vote against the transit referendum. This form eventual convince me to vote for it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So they should. Cypress is not an arterial. Excess intersections crossing 4th Ave slow the hole thing down.

I might see it your way if they'd instead closed that entire stretch of road off to all traffic. What they've done with it makes it nearly as busy as an arterial.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm confused. Would you make any changes to Burrard given the power to do so today?

The current configuration isn't broke, so I wouldn't "fix" it until there was a proper LRT/RRT alternative built. There's very little road space in and out of downtown as it is.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I hope I don't live to see the day where we start spending money on a third transit mode that's slower and less frequent than Skytrain and has little more incremental capacity than buses.

"Slow" rapid transit in the case of Arbutus means 5-6 minute headways and an average speed of 30 km/h (as opposed to 3 minutes and 45 km/h for Skytrain). That's about the same waiting time as a B-Line, except larger, somewhat faster, and not getting stuck in traffic or red lights. Not bad, given that Skytrain on Arbutus isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Although I don't really wish LRT on Surrey, if they jump in first then at least we'll all get to see what a poor solution it is for people whose expectations have been set by Skytrain.

The Surrey LRT plan doesn't work because they want to put the damn thing straight down the middle of a busy road and through every single intersection. No word on signal priority either, so it might also have to wait at red lights. Essentially, it'll be a trolley bus on tracks. Ditto for Fraser Highway and Broadway; even worse in those cases, because LRT is substituted for an RRT extension to Langley and UBC, who don't have fast rapid transit.
Light rail isn't Skytrain and shouldn't try to replace it - we agree on this. But a few bad light rail plans doesn't mean all light rail is bad.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And as far as I'm concerned the entire Downtown Streetcar concept is just a stupid ploy to get hapless taxpayers to fund a tourist attraction.

Let's agree to disagree on this one.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Surrey LRT plan doesn't work because they want to put the damn thing straight down the middle of a busy road and through every single intersection. No word on signal priority either, so it might also have to wait at red lights. Essentially, it'll be a trolley bus on tracks. Ditto for Fraser Highway and Broadway; even worse in those cases, because LRT is substituted for an RRT extension to Langley and UBC, who don't have fast rapid transit.
Light rail isn't Skytrain and shouldn't try to replace it - we agree on this. But a few bad light rail plans doesn't mean all light rail is bad.

It's almost as if you'd need a wide ROW, one that goes through several busy neighborhoods and is capable of handling LRT vehicles. Perhaps a formerly used a rail line could be of good use.

No seriously, this is why you have to ensure governments protect former ROW's. It's biting Surrey in the arse big time that they permitted development in some areas without taking into considerations future demand.

Though I seriously feel like plots along the Arbutus ROW between Burrard and W 2nd will be sold off to developers.

[retro_orange]

What would be great is if the city, province and feds got together with some major developers and made a 10 or 20 year plan to massively rebuild the Arbutus corridor. With a train (of some technology) being run down the entire stretch and purchasing as much property along the line and build a variety of commercial and residential options from townhouses to character homes converted to multi family to 20 storey residential along the entire stretch. Market condos, apartments and social housing mix along the way

Granted the remaining nimbys wouldn't go for it and the lack of any sort of provincial or federal government engagement in our local housing situation and transportation issues is very disheartening.

[Bdawe]

deleted

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

What would be great is if the city, province and feds got together with some major developers and made a 10 or 20 year plan to massively rebuild the Arbutus corridor. With a train (of some technology) being run down the entire stretch and purchasing as much property along the line and build a variety of commercial and residential options from townhouses to character homes converted to multi family to 20 storey residential along the entire stretch. Market condos, apartments and social housing mix along the way

Granted the remaining nimbys wouldn't go for it and the lack of any sort of provincial or federal government engagement in our local housing situation and transportation issues is very disheartening.

It's not a proper function of government at any level to be in the real estate development business.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Jebby

It's not a proper function of government at any level to be in the real estate development business.

Don't you think government revenue should be raised when the government is undertaking large infrastructure projects that will benefit local landowners? New rapid transit lines are a huge example.

BTW how's life as a Trump supporter in Mexico?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Don't you think government revenue should be raised when the government is undertaking large infrastructure projects that will benefit local landowners? New rapid transit lines are a huge example.

I think that there should be a business case for any new infrastructure project and that the users of said infrastructure should pay for it. Tolls for new highways and bridges, fares on rapid transit, surcharge on water bill for new pipeline, etc.

I don't think government should be in the real estate development business.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

BTW how's life as a Trump supporter in Mexico?

It's great. A Trump presidency will be good for Mexico.