Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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

Not to mention how they would extend the skytrain from the Dunsmuir tunnel. That would require cutting off a solid connection between the Expo line and the Canada Line, SeaBus, and WCE for a good year.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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



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.

I disagree. I think if you're trying to build the best network, you can't be afraid of it cannibalizing itself. It would be like forgoing the Canada Line because it would be replacing a B-Line that had a dedicated busway. From what I've read, the highest demand is between the North Shore heading for Downtown. If the best Skytrain route means replacing the Seabus, so be it.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I disagree. I think if you're trying to build the best network, you can't be afraid of it cannibalizing itself. It would be like forgoing the Canada Line because it would be replacing a B-Line that had a dedicated busway. From what I've read, the highest demand is between the North Shore heading for Downtown. If the best Skytrain route means replacing the Seabus, so be it.

That would be really quite silly in my opinion. A fair portion of traffic would be going downtown, but if you only connect the North Shore to Waterfront, then anyone going elsewhere on the network would be adding demand to the busiest part of the network.

It would be beneficial to the overall network to have the line go down Hastings and tie in with M-Line and Expo if at all possible.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That would be really quite silly in my opinion. A fair portion of traffic would be going downtown, but if you only connect the North Shore to Waterfront, then anyone going elsewhere on the network would be adding demand to the busiest part of the network.

It would be beneficial to the overall network to have the line go down Hastings and tie in with M-Line and Expo if at all possible.

Oh, it wouldn't be a separate line. Theoretically, you could extend the Expo Line across Burrard Inlet. It could journey east through Strathcona and then turn north to Lonsdale. You can have a spur so that a future line could continue down Hastings St.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Oh, it wouldn't be a separate line. Theoretically, you could extend the Expo Line across Burrard Inlet. It could journey east through Strathcona and then turn north to Lonsdale. You can have a spur so that a future line could continue down Hastings St.

Thing is, that'd mean that all the emptied Expo trains at Waterfront will now be full of North Van riders trying to get to Broadway, Metrotown, etc (because Expo -> bus -> Expo doesn't make much sense); likewise, you'd have the already-crowded northbound service packed with Burnaby/Coq riders going to North Van. And don't forget the additional crunch from the Hastings branch!

IMO even the Expo doesn't have the capacity to manage the entire city's foot traffic; the North Shore Line'd work best as an independent line heading straight south through Strathcona/Grandview and connecting to the Expo and Millennium and Hastings Lines. The SeaBus from Waterfront would be alright as a relief line.

[Mac Write]

This all really needs to be moved to the fantasy thread. The next line after UBC and Surrey is Hastings. So North Shore is decades away at best.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why tho?

The population of the North Shore is about 195,000 people. At hopeful 25% mode share, that would be at least $6billion spent to generate 50,000 daily trips?

So, basically 1 supper expensive rapid transit line per 100,000 population?

The population of Surrey is 519,000. When are we planning Surrey's 5 rapid transit lines? Add on 50,000 in North Delta and another 140,000 in Langley, and what, we are going to have 7 lines crisscross South Of Fraser?

I'm not saying the North Shore shouldn't get rapid transit, but things have to be proportional.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Why tho?

The population of the North Shore is about 195,000 people. At hopeful 25% mode share, that would be at least $6billion spent to generate 50,000 daily trips?

So, basically 1 supper expensive rapid transit line per 100,000 population?

The population of Surrey is 519,000. When are we planning Surrey's 5 rapid transit lines? Add on 50,000 in North Delta and another 140,000 in Langley, and what, we are going to have 7 lines crisscross South Of Fraser?

I'm not saying the North Shore shouldn't get rapid transit, but things have to be proportional.

Maybe surrey should put itself in a geographically constrained location immediately adjacent to the core of the region?

The mindless insistence on "proportionality" is as useful a planning idea if we say that Abbotsford should get a skytrain and Kelowna too

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Why tho?

The population of the North Shore is about 195,000 people. At hopeful 25% mode share, that would be at least $6billion spent to generate 50,000 daily trips?

So, basically 1 supper expensive rapid transit line per 100,000 population?

The population of Surrey is 519,000. When are we planning Surrey's 5 rapid transit lines? Add on 50,000 in North Delta and another 140,000 in Langley, and what, we are going to have 7 lines crisscross South Of Fraser?

I'm not saying the North Shore shouldn't get rapid transit, but things have to be proportional.

5x 50,000 would be 100,000 daily trips actually. 2 trips per rider.

If you do a line along Hastings and across the Second Narrows that adds about another 100K population into the mix. If you go through the West End or Coal Harbour and over Lions Gate, that adds about 50K potential riders along that route.

Either way, the line would be in reasonably dense areas for most of the route, which is suited to high ridership and mode share.

Langley City and Township together have fairly similar populations to the North Shore for comparison.

[WarrenC12]

Is there any possibility of adding rail to the Lions gate bridge? Can it support more weight at all?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

This all really needs to be moved to the fantasy thread. The next line after UBC and Surrey is Hastings. So North Shore is decades away at best.

Come again?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thing is, that'd mean that all the emptied Expo trains at Waterfront will now be full of North Van riders trying to get to Broadway, Metrotown, etc (because Expo -> bus -> Expo doesn't make much sense); likewise, you'd have the already-crowded northbound service packed with Burnaby/Coq riders going to North Van. And don't forget the additional crunch from the Hastings branch!

IMO even the Expo doesn't have the capacity to manage the entire city's foot traffic; the North Shore Line'd work best as an independent line heading straight south through Strathcona/Grandview and connecting to the Expo and Millennium and Hastings Lines. The SeaBus from Waterfront would be alright as a relief line.

I think the capacity of the Expo Line could be a legitimate concern, however, more in the distant future. Keep in mind, some of the passengers that board at Waterfront right now are coming from the Seabus. Also, the peak passenger load of the Expo Line right now is around 15,000 pphpd. With the upgrades, the line can support about 25,000 pphpd, which means it should be ok for a while.

That said, there is also the convenience of having seamless travel. I don't think it makes sense to create a line that will end up causing most passengers from the North Shore to make an unnecessary transfer. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the study says when it looks at these options to see which one is the best.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I think the capacity of the Expo Line could be a legitimate concern, however, more in the distant future. Keep in mind, some of the passengers that board at Waterfront right now are coming from the Seabus. Also, the peak passenger load of the Expo Line right now is around 15,000 pphpd. With the upgrades, the line can support about 25,000 pphpd, which means it should be ok for a while.

That said, there is also the convenience of having seamless travel. I don't think it makes sense to create a line that will end up causing most passengers from the North Shore to make an unnecessary transfer. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the study says when it looks at these options to see which one is the best.

True, but that 25,000 is going to be filled up by Vancouver/Burnaby/Surrey riders too. The general idea in transit networks is to distribute the load.

Eh, with two branches (one for North Van, one for Hastings), you're waiting twice as long and being inconvenienced anyway. And not everybody's going downtown, so it's a choice between an unnecessary transfer for those riders or an unnecessary 10-20 minute detour for everybody else; one reduces crowding, one increases it.

[Tvisforme]

Does a potential tunnel need to be completely underground? Looking at the elevation profiles, I can't help but think that if the water wasn't there - ie a mountain highway - one might have a series of tunnels and bridges. This could potentially reduce the grade on either side as well, assuming that there aren't other problems such as anchors to contend with. Thoughts?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Maybe surrey should put itself in a geographically constrained location immediately adjacent to the core of the region?

The mindless insistence on "proportionality" is as useful a planning idea if we say that Abbotsford should get a skytrain and Kelowna too

Surrey kind of is.

I mean, South of Fraser is constrained by the river. For ~700,000 people, we have 13 peak direction lanes to cross the river, or about 1 lane per 54,000 people. North Shore only has 6 peak direction lanes, but for 200,000 that's 33,000 people per lane.

And to be fair, Abbostford's population will surpass the North Shore's within a generation. Why be so dismissive? What makes North Shore more deserving of special treatment over the 2nd class cities you mention?

A 27km extension of the Expo line from Langley to Downtown Abbotsford, at $150 million/km, would be about a $4 billion project. Or, not that far off the probable cost of Skytrain to North Shore. And that's the pie in the sky option, there are much more affordable options for rapid transit to Abbotsford.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

5x 50,000 would be 100,000 daily trips actually. 2 trips per rider.

If you do a line along Hastings and across the Second Narrows that adds about another 100K population into the mix. If you go through the West End or Coal Harbour and over Lions Gate, that adds about 50K potential riders along that route.

Either way, the line would be in reasonably dense areas for most of the route, which is suited to high ridership and mode share.

Langley City and Township together have fairly similar populations to the North Shore for comparison.

Well, my post was in response to someone just assuming it would be common sense to build 2 lines to a 200,000 resident suburb.

And I was being generous to assume that 25% of every single man woman and child travel every day. But still, 100,000 daily boardings (or 1 boarding for every 2 residents, seems absurd when you say it like that), puts it in Evergreen line ridership numbers, for a project that will cost 3 or 4 evergreen lines.

The Seabus gets about the same number of weekday boardings as the 319 bus in Surrey.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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

I'm guessing that you're basing this on SeaBus ridership. But that's somewhat artificially limited by the number of vessels available and the frequency. I'll be very interested to see what happens when another vessel is added and the frequency is increased from 15 minute intervals to 10 minutes. I think that's going to make the SeaBus significantly more attractive as a commuting alternative.

I believe that frequency is very nearly as important as speed when people consider transit options - it's the main reason why Skytrain's automation, which allows for high frequencies with low labour cost, was such a game changer.

Reliability is another prime characteristic of rapid transit, and the SeaBus is the most reliable component of our transit system.

[Dengler Avenue]

“Reliability is another prime characteristic of rapid transit, and the SeaBus is the most reliable component of our transit system.”

Lol, I find that ironic given lack of ROW and weather factor.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

“Reliability is another prime characteristic of rapid transit, and the SeaBus is the most reliable component of our transit system.”

Lol, I find that ironic given lack of ROW and weather factor.

The entire Seabus system, from vessels to terminals, was brilliantly designed so that it didn't have any single points of failure. It's operational record has proven the effectiveness of that design.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The entire Seabus system, from vessels to terminals, was brilliantly designed so that it didn't have any single points of failure. It's operational record has proven the effectiveness of that design.

Hmm, I never thought about that, but when one does:

• multiple doors on both sides
• two berths at each terminal
• minimum of two vessels (right from the start)
• vessel design doesn't seem to be affected by marine weather in the harbour
• relatively flexible in the event of obstacles in the regular route

[s211]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Hmm, I never thought about that, but when one does:

• multiple doors on both sides
• two berths at each terminal
• minimum of two vessels (right from the start)
• vessel design doesn't seem to be affected by marine weather in the harbour
• relatively flexible in the event of obstacles in the regular route

And there's another form of transit that's got quite a proven record too: buses!