Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[ilikeredheads]

You don't need to do a study to know that any solution that involves a 3rd crossing is not feasible both financially and geographically. It will be guaranteed to be astronomically expensive but that's not even the main problem here. The problem is there is no ideal place for a 3rd crossing. The inlet is a busy ship corridor so a tunnel or a bridge will have to either deep enough or high enough to accommodate ship traffic. Then there's the problem that most of the shoreline is taken up by the port, railyards, or shipyards, so you are unlikely to acquire the land even if you can afford it.

The only likely solution they'll offer is to improve bus and seabus service.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Sheba

To be fair the title says "rapid transit line" and the article says the "study could also explore increased use of the inlet waterway through an extended SeaBus network" so it's not all about Skytrain.

Personally I hope any improvements go to North Van while West Van is ignored (with the possible exception of a 'station' at Park Royal). If West Van doesn't need an express bus beyond Park Royal...

a technical feasibility study of a potential fixed rapid transit connection across the inlet to reach West Vancouver and North Vancouver

The technical aspects of this study are expected to determine the viability of extending the regional SkyTrain system across Burrard Inlet to reach North Shore communities.

AFAIK, a "fixed" rapid transit means something on a rail or guideway, and pretty much rule out bus or SeaBus....

[nname]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

You don't need to do a study to know that any solution that involves a 3rd crossing is not feasible both financially and geographically. It will be guaranteed to be astronomically expensive but that's not even the main problem here. The problem is there is no ideal place for a 3rd crossing.

At least it shall put a price tag on it.

Wasn't there a feasibility study for a fixed link to Vancouver Island that was done years ago... and the price tag came up to be 30 billion or something?

Technically it should be doable as there are many underwater crossing in the world that goes through wider, steeper, deeper, and busier ship channels with much more demanding rail alignment.

Financially... well it's all depend on how much we are willing to spend on rapid transit?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by nname

At least it shall put a price tag on it.

Wasn't there a feasibility study for a fixed link to Vancouver Island that was done years ago... and the price tag came up to be 30 billion or something? Consider the Burrard inlet is much narrower and not in an open water, it should be much cheaper than that... I would say 3-5 billions

Would anything > $1B sound like a hard sell?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Would anything > $1B sound like a hard sell?

Still, it all depends.

At 1B or even 1.5B, it is still cheaper per km than Broadway Subway

[rpvan]

All these upgrades on 41st for the new B-line, yet nothing on 49th. As per the lastest translink review (2018), the 49 is the most used and overcrowded route across the region after the 99.

What gives?

[Migrant_Coconut]

If anybody's interested, waves last year worked out a SkyTrain tunnel alignment that cost about two and a half billion at the cheapest.

Given that a highway tunnel would need to be almost twice as wide as a SkyTrain tunnel and would just end up clogged on day one, I'm not holding my breath.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by rpvan

All these upgrades on 41st for the new B-line, yet nothing on 49th. As per the lastest translink review (2018), the 49 is the most used and overcrowded route across the region after the 99.

What gives?

As someone mentioned a few pages back, Translink might be hoping that the 41st Avenue B-Line will relief 49.

[logan5]

Early news just showed an animation of what looked like a trenched tunnel. with a connection between Lonsdale Quay and Waterfront Station.

[lokyin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If anybody's interested, waves last year worked out a SkyTrain tunnel alignment that cost about two and a half billion at the cheapest.

Given that a highway tunnel would need to be almost twice as wide as a SkyTrain tunnel and would just end up clogged on day one, I'm not holding my breath.

Wow that's impressive what waves did!

[officedweller]

Agreed!

[goldenboi]

Any ideas of where the SeaBusses could be relocated once there is SkyTrain to the North Shore? I'm trying to imagine something but I'm having trouble.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by nname

Still, it all depends.

At 1B or even 1.5B, it is still cheaper per km than Broadway Subway

As a comparison, Metro Vancouver is tunneling a 6m diameter tunnel 30m under Second Narrows for water mains. The tunnel is only 1.1km and will cost about $430 million. Sure, that includes other infrastructure, but it's also connected to vertical access at either end, making actual tunnel construction flat and easy.

To do waves plan, for a train, you would need 2 tunnels, each at least 4km long, and that's just to cross Burrard Inlet, forget about the rest of the project for a second. So lets lowball and say a cost of about $300million for a 6m wide tunnel per km, and we need 2.

So that's about $2.4 billion for just a train tunnel under Burrard inlet (and that's probably at the low end of the probable cost). That's not including the rest of the line and stations.

A direct link between Vancouver and Lonsdale is going to be in the area of $3 to $4 billion, and that's to serve riders who already have a pretty sweet deal with the Seabus.

I think the only way a fixed link makes sense is if it also includes a massive upgrade on the TCH at the Second Narrows.

I think there are 2 real choices. 1st, close the Lions Gate bridge and convert it to light rail and cycling/walking only and shift vehicle traffic to an upgraded Second Narrows. The other plan is to include Skytrain over a new Second Narrows bridge (either a replacement or a twin to the existing).

They are both longer routes but as a result would serve more people who are currently very poorly served by transit today.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

As a comparison, Metro Vancouver is tunneling a 6m diameter tunnel 30m under Second Narrows for water mains. The tunnel is only 1.1km and will cost about $430 million. Sure, that includes other infrastructure, but it's also connected to vertical access at either end, making actual tunnel construction flat and easy.

To do waves plan, for a train, you would need 2 tunnels, each at least 4km long, and that's just to cross Burrard Inlet, forget about the rest of the project for a second. So lets lowball and say a cost of about $300million for a 6m wide tunnel per km, and we need 2.

So that's about $2.4 billion for just a train tunnel under Burrard inlet (and that's probably at the low end of the probable cost). That's not including the rest of the line and stations.

A direct link between Vancouver and Lonsdale is going to be in the area of $3 to $4 billion, and that's to serve riders who already have a pretty sweet deal with the Seabus.

I think the only way a fixed link makes sense is if it also includes a massive upgrade on the TCH at the Second Narrows.

I think there are 2 real choices. 1st, close the Lions Gate bridge and convert it to light rail and cycling/walking only and shift vehicle traffic to an upgraded Second Narrows. The other plan is to include Skytrain over a new Second Narrows bridge (either a replacement or a twin to the existing).

They are both longer routes but as a result would serve more people who are currently very poorly served by transit today.

The problem is that closing Lions Gate would create a fairly large detour for those needing to drive to and from Downtown up to North Vancouver or up along the Sea to Sky. Not sure if that would make sense.

[Aroundtheworld]

I have a feeling that in the end there will be multiple rapid transit crossings.

I see one between Downtown and Lonsdale. Yes, it would replace the Seabus but this is where the demand is. It would also be significant time savings, especially from destinations further in North Vancouver such as Central Lonsdale and Lynn Valley.

The other one I see is from West Van through Stanley Park crossing near where the Lions Gate Bridge is. This could also serve the West End and Coal Harbour.

[lokyin]

We'd never get anything through the West Van side considering how NIMBY and anti-growth and anti-improvements they are. And it won't happen because they don't seem open to justifying a rail line with added density potential.

Whereas the north van (both district & city) seem much more open to density that would justify rapid transit.

Is it possible to collab with CN Rail to re-do the Second Narrows Vertical-Lifted Rail Bridge together? Route truck-crossing and skytrain along with CN rail crossing together? (Super slow trucks take up 1-2 of the 3 lanes in rush hour traffic and create jams on ironworkers).

[ilikeredheads]

Closing Lions Gate aint happening because that leaves you with only ONE single crossing which will make traffic on the Iron Workers significantly worse. If it gets shut down due to an accident, the North Shore suddenly becomes isolated.

The post that waves made highlights a couple of things: huge elevation changes make this more complicated than it appears; a tunnel between lonsdale and downtown is extremely unlikely due to the long distance as well as having to navigate through the deepest part of the inlet.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Apparently there's barely enough ridership for even one SkyTrain crossing right now, so we have to pick a good one.

Originally Posted by goldenboi

Any ideas of where the SeaBusses could be relocated once there is SkyTrain to the North Shore? I'm trying to imagine something but I'm having trouble.

IMO it's best if we keep the SeaBus route and run the North Shore SkyTrain somewhere else - Main or Commercial, for example. No need to relocate a significant (and successful) part of the network when can have it AND the replacement at the same time.

[cganuelas1995]

If anything, you'd upgrade the LGB to 4 lanes or 4+1 contraflow lane, with provisions for skytrain track either underneath or on the side of the bridge, likely the latter because the bridge needs clearance underneath for the cruise ships considering that one had to wait until the early morning when the tide is low to cross underneath it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

If anything, you'd upgrade the LGB to 4 lanes or 4+1 contraflow lane, with provisions for skytrain track either underneath or on the side of the bridge, likely the latter because the bridge needs clearance underneath for the cruise ships considering that one had to wait until the early morning when the tide is low to cross underneath it.

IIRC that was already suggested a couple decades ago... and rejected because of the trees.