Transit Fantasies

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If public demand and politics wasn't a thing, the Evergreen and Surrey extensions wouldn't even have been considered, much less the North Shore's. Pretty sure that increased coverage of downtown is at least near or on that level.

Not with the current setup, no. But we're talking about future demand after removing half of Davie and Robson and possibly Pender/Dunsmuir's road capacity, and that's a much different equation.
Finally found the stupid graphic (page 277). Overall demand for Cambie-Arbutus is ~1,600-3,800 WB in 2041; doubled (for lack of an EB graph), that's as much as 7,600. I'd argue strongly that the West End, especially with an event on, is just as much in-demand as UBC by 2041, if not already.

---

Relevant or not, 27-28.5 average (sources are conflicted) is the kind of medium-capacity speed we should be expecting on the Greenway. 60 top is too fast for everything north of 49th, and 60 average is faster than the SkyTrain!

Besides, seeing as Surrey was aiming for 21, I think we're good.

Ah, whoops, forgot to post them




And no, your math is wrong, because people aren't going WB and EB at the same time at the same rate. What matters is how many people there are in the cars at any given time for capacity.

And we can aim for much faster than road speedsbecause this is off-street. The WCE goes through populated areas at 55km/h+.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

And no, your math is wrong, because people aren't going WB and EB at the same time at the same rate. What matters is how many people there are in the cars at any given time for capacity.

And we can aim for much faster than road speedsbecause this is off-street. The WCE goes through populated areas at 55km/h+.

Which is why I said as much as twice that many. Obviously it won't be that high, yet we don't have an eastbound prediction, and the total in/out traffic prediction is high enough that RRT makes sense long-term.

The WCE achieves 55+ with near-total grade separation via trench. A tram should be able to make 55+ in False Creek and Marpole, but it's still crossing Broadway/41st/etc at-grade.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The WCE achieves 55+ with near-total grade separation via trench. A tram should be able to make 55+ in False Creek and Marpole, but it's still crossing Broadway/41st/etc at-grade.

In my fantasy, if the Arbutus Greenway was going to be LRT, it would dip into short little tunnels underneath those major intersections. It wouldn't be a full tunnel; just a few convenient dips underneath some major intersections (like Broadway and 41st).

[waves]

Originally Posted by scryer

In my fantasy, if the Arbutus Greenway was going to be LRT, it would dip into short little tunnels underneath those major intersections. It wouldn't be a full tunnel; just a few convenient dips underneath some major intersections (like Broadway and 41st).

This might not be very practical with a conventional motor train set that can only get max 5% grade. The depths would need to be great enough to go under existing utilities in the street and deep enough for the overhead wires (8.5-10m). So at a 4% grade plus vertical curves, you would need 200-300m of distance minimum for each crossing. To go under Broadway, you would essentially need to start descending at 12th.

Yeah, but that's the tunnel portal part. Just move it to earlier in the line and avoid any potential road conflicts.

To clarify:

[scryer]

Originally Posted by waves

This might not be very practical with a conventional motor train set that can only get max 5% grade. The depths would need to be great enough to go under existing utilities in the street and deep enough for the overhead wires (8.5-10m). So at a 4% grade plus vertical curves, you would need 200-300m of distance minimum for each crossing. To go under Broadway, you would essentially need to start descending at 12th.

And through sheer logic, my fantasy (and day) is ruined! Thanks for nothing, waves

With that in mind I will have to review my fantasy map that I made .

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by waves

This might not be very practical with a conventional motor train set that can only get max 5% grade. The depths would need to be great enough to go under existing utilities in the street and deep enough for the overhead wires (8.5-10m). So at a 4% grade plus vertical curves, you would need 200-300m of distance minimum for each crossing. To go under Broadway, you would essentially need to start descending at 12th.



To clarify:

The entire Hastings St overpass over the rail there is that long.

And it’s over an active freight line. These overpasses would be much less tall, if road going over rail.

So maybe overpasses (of the road by the rail or the rail by the road) would work better than underpasses.

I don’t even think you’d need 10m depth to get under the utilities on an underpass, but regardless.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Which is why I said as much as twice that many. Obviously it won't be that high, yet we don't have an eastbound prediction, and the total in/out traffic prediction is high enough that RRT makes sense long-term.

The WCE achieves 55+ with near-total grade separation via trench. A tram should be able to make 55+ in False Creek and Marpole, but it's still crossing Broadway/41st/etc at-grade.

The WCE crosses arterials at-grade (Harris Rd, 203rd Street). Even then, though, the big problem is the delays caused by rail-road conflicts, which is going to happen regardless of speed of the mainline, meaning most (if not all) of those overpasses will have to be built if frequency>5min anyways.

Capacity is measured in pphpd. Persons Per Hour, Per Direction.
So the eastbound AM direction literally shouldn't even factor into the calculations here.

PM Peak tends to be less extreme than AM Peak in general. I'll have to check if the PM Peak is there though, I don't really have time.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by waves

This might not be very practical with a conventional motor train set that can only get max 5% grade. The depths would need to be great enough to go under existing utilities in the street and deep enough for the overhead wires (8.5-10m). So at a 4% grade plus vertical curves, you would need 200-300m of distance minimum for each crossing. To go under Broadway, you would essentially need to start descending at 12th.



To clarify:

The tram can start at 16th - that's where planners figure it's too narrow for two tracks. But planners say there's also no room for grade-separated station accesses, so the NB track is supposed to leave the ROW and run on Arbutus for some reason. Not good.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The WCE crosses arterials at-grade (Harris Rd, 203rd Street). Even then, though, the big problem is the delays caused by rail-road conflicts, which is going to happen regardless of speed of the mainline, meaning most (if not all) of those overpasses will have to be built if frequency>5min anyways.

Capacity is measured in pphpd. Persons Per Hour, Per Direction.
So the eastbound AM direction literally shouldn't even factor into the calculations here.

PM Peak tends to be less extreme than AM Peak in general. I'll have to check if the PM Peak is there though, I don't really have time.

Also the hour-long conflicts with freight rail which has priority, but that's a different conversation.

Point taken. But in that context, ~3,800 AM Peak isn't enough to justify a SkyTrain to UBC either; the point is that it's more than just current capacity, it's future capacity and TOD too.

[waves]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The entire Hastings St overpass over the rail there is that long.

And it’s over an active freight line. These overpasses would be much less tall, if road going over rail.

So maybe overpasses (of the road by the rail or the rail by the road) would work better than underpasses.

I don’t even think you’d need 10m depth to get under the utilities on an underpass, but regardless.

Roads and vehicles can climb steeper grades than train vehicles so a road overpass would be much shorter than a rail underpass, but practically, an overpass wouldn't really work for a developed intersection such as Arbutus and Broadway. 2-3m depth on utilities plus 6m depth on the train row is right in that 8-10m range. 6m is the Canada Line tunnel depth. 3-4m is a typical LRT vehicle height. Add tracks and overhead wires and you quickly use up that 6m of space.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The tram can start at 16th - that's where planners figure it's too narrow for two tracks. But planners say there's also no room for grade-separated station accesses, so the NB track is supposed to leave the ROW and run on Arbutus for some reason. Not good.



Also the hour-long conflicts with freight rail which has priority, but that's a different conversation.

Point taken. But in that context, ~3,800 AM Peak isn't enough to justify a SkyTrain to UBC either; the point is that it's more than just current capacity, it's future capacity and TOD too.

Wait, so they would remove one of the lanes on Artubus? Why not just move the greenway onto that space then?

There is an update to the Phase 2 Evaluation that indicates that UBC demand is much higher than indicated in that one. Overall volume is similar, but UBC demand is MUCH higher- 5000pphpd+.

I don't really know which one to trust more, but regardless:
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...9_01_24_technical_report_rail_to_ubc.pdf

Also, there's the speed thing I mentioned earlier. Speed doesn't matter as much at shorter distances.

Honestly, after the Broadway (and maybe UBC), there's likely not much else that can really be justified off capacity/demand alone for another 20 years. Hence why the current plans for RT besides UBC are SoF.
Broadway only got so bad because of the politics of the day.

Long Term as in >30y?

Originally Posted by waves

Roads and vehicles can climb steeper grades than train vehicles so a road overpass would be much shorter than a rail underpass, but practically, an overpass wouldn't really work for a developed intersection such as Arbutus and Broadway. 2-3m depth on utilities plus 6m depth on the train row is right in that 8-10m range. 6m is the Canada Line tunnel depth. 3-4m is a typical LRT vehicle height. Add tracks and overhead wires and you quickly use up that 6m of space.

That means you only need to go ~6m, minus any additional height that the LRT needs over the Canada Line Trains. Canada was dug under Cambie proper, not the median.

Yeah, the easiest is probably a rail overpass in most cases. Just that it might not be suitable 100% of the time.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by waves

Roads and vehicles can climb steeper grades than train vehicles so a road overpass would be much shorter than a rail underpass, but practically, an overpass wouldn't really work for a developed intersection such as Arbutus and Broadway. 2-3m depth on utilities plus 6m depth on the train row is right in that 8-10m range. 6m is the Canada Line tunnel depth. 3-4m is a typical LRT vehicle height. Add tracks and overhead wires and you quickly use up that 6m of space.

Moving the utilities is also a possibility, and could be less expensive especially if they can accomodate a steeper grade than the train.

I recall during Canada line construction along Cambie (between Broadway and 6th) that they first the dug up the street to rebuild some sort of sewer pipe, then they dug up the street again again for the canada line tunnel. In that case I think the train tunnel crossed over top of the sewer as the train shifts from the east side of Cambie (At Broadway) to the west side (at 6th)

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'm not seeing 12th getting dug up just for a streetcar tunnel - especially since the selling point is getting this built for less than a billion.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Wait, so they would remove one of the lanes on Artubus? Why not just move the greenway onto that space then?

There is an update to the Phase 2 Evaluation that indicates that UBC demand is much higher than indicated in that one. Overall volume is similar, but UBC demand is MUCH higher- 5000pphpd+.

I don't really know which one to trust more, but regardless:
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...9_01_24_technical_report_rail_to_ubc.pdf
Also, there's the speed thing I mentioned earlier. Speed doesn't matter as much at shorter distances.

Honestly, after the Broadway (and maybe UBC), there's likely not much else that can really be justified off capacity/demand alone for another 20 years. Hence why the current plans for RT besides UBC are SoF.
Broadway only got so bad because of the politics of the day.

Because then there's buildings splitting the Greenway; it'll apparently be mixed-traffic rather than a closed lane (though it's probably better off closed). I can only hope that this is the City's idea rather than TransLink's.

Go with the newer one - 2019's been updated to account for increased transit usage (Evergreen et al) and the 2016 Census' increased population/employment rates.
The latter kind of ties back to my point - if the West End continues at the current rate of growth, it's going to jump from ~48,000 residents right now to 60,500 in 2041; the entire Cambie Corridor from 16th to Marine (second busiest section of the line) is ~35k going on ~85k. Again, speed is negligible, yes, but the capacity requirements are likely going to be important on a regular weekday, let alone one of the events that drag half the metro to the West End.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm not seeing 12th getting dug up just for a streetcar tunnel - especially since the selling point is getting this built for less than a billion.



Because then there's buildings splitting the Greenway; it'll apparently be mixed-traffic rather than a closed lane (though it's probably better off closed). I can only hope that this is the City's idea rather than TransLink's.

Go with the newer one - 2019's been updated to account for increased transit usage (Evergreen et al) and the 2016 Census' increased population/employment rates.
The latter kind of ties back to my point - if the West End continues at the current rate of growth, it's going to jump from ~48,000 residents right now to 60,500 in 2041; the entire Cambie Corridor from 16th to Marine (second busiest section of the line) is ~35k going on ~85k. Again, speed is negligible, yes, but the capacity requirements are likely going to be important on a regular weekday, let alone one of the events that drag half the metro to the West End.

Because then there's buildings splitting the Greenway; it'll apparently be mixed-traffic rather than a closed lane (though it's probably better off closed).

Is that from Public Consultation meetings or on paper? Because that's probably CoV talking.

And the area there should technically be wide enough for everything (15m width north of 16th-5.5m current pathway width= 9.5m width- theoretically plenty for 2 rails)- problem is probably that it'd be too close to pedestrians for comfort if you're going fast (or even 27km/h) without heavy-duty fencing.

The compromise would be to elevate it between 16 and Fir, since the thing would have to cross over no less than 4 arterials (5 if you include going under W 4th on Fir). Instead of 4-5 overpasses, just build one long overpass. Though, yeah, that'd ruin the asthetics too and make it just look like Skytrain. Ah, well.

It's kind of impossible to use the newer one to compare to the West End, since it assumes the Broadway Subway is already built to Arbutus.
I guess in the end it depends on when the thing is built. If in the next 20 years, probably it's worth it to get everything as BRT first, and use it to get ridership up until Skytrain is needed.

If TransLink builds Skytrain primarily out to the suburbs into 2040-2050 and nothing is in place in DT by then, then BRT on Georgia/Robson would only have a shelf life of a few decades at best, assuming the West End doesn't become a 2nd Yaletown following a new West End Plan. So yeah, then Skytrain on Georgia/Robson at least.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Is that from Public Consultation meetings or on paper? Because that's probably CoV talking.

And the area there should technically be wide enough for everything (15m width north of 16th-5.5m current pathway width= 9.5m width- theoretically plenty for 2 rails)- problem is probably that it'd be too close to pedestrians for comfort if you're going fast (or even 27km/h) without heavy-duty fencing.

The compromise would be to elevate it between 16 and Fir, since the thing would have to cross over no less than 4 arterials (5 if you include going under W 4th on Fir). Instead of 4-5 overpasses, just build one long overpass. Though, yeah, that'd ruin the asthetics too and make it just look like Skytrain. Ah, well.

It's kind of impossible to use the newer one to compare to the West End, since it assumes the Broadway Subway is already built to Arbutus.
I guess in the end it depends on when the thing is built. If in the next 20 years, probably it's worth it to get everything as BRT first, and use it to get ridership up until Skytrain is needed.

If TransLink builds Skytrain primarily out to the suburbs into 2040-2050 and nothing is in place in DT by then, then BRT on Georgia/Robson would only have a shelf life of a few decades at best, assuming the West End doesn't become a 2nd Yaletown following a new West End Plan. So yeah, then Skytrain on Georgia/Robson at least.

The mixed-traffic merger? Problem is that the City wants a pedway AND bikeway on the Greenway, both 3.5 metres wide; no room for two trains between 16th and 6th. Let's hope TransLink'll just bury that segment - after all, it's going up a hill anyway, so it can just merge into the slope.

What I meant was just to dig the tunnel at 16th and forget about moving the pipes on 12th. Elevated is going to be even more of a PITA in terms of station construction and access, especially near Broadway.

Yeah, BRT followed by SkyTrain seems to be the default TransLink strategy. Don't think it's going to be much of a wait though, since the next one on the list after UBC/Langley is probably the 95/R5 on Hastings; at the risk of becoming a broken record, if they're going to build into downtown, they might as well add a station or three for the West End and Stanley Park.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The mixed-traffic merger? Problem is that the City wants a pedway AND bikeway on the Greenway, both 3.5 metres wide; no room for two trains between 16th and 6th. Let's hope TransLink'll just bury that segment - after all, it's going up a hill anyway, so it can just merge into the slope.

What I meant was just to dig the tunnel at 16th and forget about moving the pipes on 12th. Elevated is going to be even more of a PITA in terms of integration. Nowhere to put the Broadway platform, for example.

Yeah, BRT followed by SkyTrain seems to be the default TransLink strategy. Don't think it's going to be much of a wait though, since the next one on the list after UBC/Langley is probably the 95/R5 on Hastings; at the risk of becoming a broken record, if they're going to build into downtown, they might as well add a station or three for the West End and Stanley Park.

Problem is BRT=/= B-Line, even with the RapidBus improvements. They'd need more funding specifically for a project like this.
Depends on your definition of long. I consider 30 y long. :/

Yes, the mixed traffic merger.
Cut and Cover is also a pain because of the fact that have to account for the Broadway Subway proper and the Arbutus cut-and cover Skytrain station, especially when the Skytrain wasn't built to account for that being a potential issue (like on the Canada). No reason they can't just put platforms on the elevated guideway.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Problem is BRT=/= B-Line, even with the RapidBus improvements. They'd need more funding specifically for a project like this.
Depends on your definition of long. I consider 30 y long. :/

Yes, the mixed traffic merger.
Cut and Cover is also a pain because of the fact that have to account for the Broadway Subway proper and the Arbutus cut-and cover Skytrain station, especially when the Skytrain wasn't built to account for that being a potential issue (like on the Canada). No reason they can't just put platforms on the elevated guideway.

Well, we get a new SkyTrain project about once every 7 years. Starting from 2025, 1) Langley 2) UBC 3) Hastings (not necessarily in that order) is 21 tops; less if we get a package deal like Arbutus/Fleetwood.

It's not really the platforms, it's getting people to/from the platforms - without land acquisition of the same properties that the City's about to sell off, the escalators alone will likely make an elevated station too wide for the Greenway. And there's little to no point in hauling in a TBM for a half-mile of track. Cut n' cover's not ideal, but it seems to be the least bad option.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, BRT followed by SkyTrain seems to be the default TransLink strategy. Don't think it's going to be much of a wait though, since the next one on the list after UBC/Langley is probably the 95/R5 on Hastings; at the risk of becoming a broken record, if they're going to build into downtown, they might as well add a station or three for the West End and Stanley Park.

Having a Hastings Skytrain Line continue past Waterfront into the West End (and possibly to the North Shore?) seems a no-brainer - which of course means the powers that be probably aren't thinking about it...

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The mixed-traffic merger? Problem is that the City wants a pedway AND bikeway on the Greenway, both 3.5 metres wide; no room for two trains between 16th and 6th. Let's hope TransLink'll just bury that segment - after all, it's going up a hill anyway, so it can just merge into the slope.

What I meant was just to dig the tunnel at 16th and forget about moving the pipes on 12th. Elevated is going to be even more of a PITA in terms of station construction and access, especially near Broadway.

Yeah, BRT followed by SkyTrain seems to be the default TransLink strategy. Don't think it's going to be much of a wait though, since the next one on the list after UBC/Langley is probably the 95/R5 on Hastings; at the risk of becoming a broken record, if they're going to build into downtown, they might as well add a station or three for the West End and Stanley Park.

Hmm.
15m- 3.5*4 still leaves 1 meter left. So yeah, it's to avoid fences.

I'd like to point out "may as well" is $800M- considering we considered removing the Richmond Canada Line Spur for less...

Not to mention you may get Skytrain from CoqCentral to Riverwood in PoCo (about where the Pitt River is) for a similar amount of money- or possibly even the entire Hastings Line from Waterfront to PNE (assuming Hastings is cut and cover)
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resi...int=file%2cxlsx&authkey=!AEVKRPUewNLiRtU

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, we get a new SkyTrain project about once every 7 years. Starting from 2025, 1) Langley 2) UBC 3) Hastings (not necessarily in that order) is 21 tops; less if we get a package deal like Arbutus/Fleetwood.

It's not really the platforms, it's getting people to/from the platforms - without land acquisition of the same properties that the City's about to sell off, the escalators alone will likely make an elevated station too wide for the Greenway. And there's little to no point in hauling in a TBM for a half-mile of track. Cut n' cover's not ideal, but it seems to be the least bad option.

Which properties?
This is another reason to go fast - you can do with only one station on Broadway-Arbutus, where nearby property is slated for a bus terminal.

And I already pointed out Hastings may become Broadway 2.0 due to the DTES 'problem'. It's not really that I don't think Vancouver won't be building a ton of Skytrain (I actually think it'll be avg. 5y/segment), my questioning is the order. https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...0A459174FB44A8870D00EFCE54124A01078D0698

We still need to fill in the White Rock-Guildford corridor at minimum with something (LRT is dead, so BRT or Skytrain.) Likely also double-track the ends of the Canada as well.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Hmm.
15m- 3.5*4 still leaves 1 meter left. So yeah, it's to avoid fences.

I'd like to point out "may as well" is $800M- considering we considered removing the Richmond Canada Line Spur for less...

Not to mention you may get Skytrain from CoqCentral to Riverwood in PoCo (about where the Pitt River is) for a similar amount of money- or possibly even the entire Hastings Line from Waterfront to PNE (assuming Hastings is cut and cover)
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resi...int=file%2cxlsx&authkey=!AEVKRPUewNLiRtU

----

Which properties?
This is another reason to go fast - you can do with only one station on Broadway-Arbutus, where nearby property is slated for a bus terminal.

And I already pointed out Hastings may become Broadway 2.0 due to the DTES 'problem'. It's not really that I don't think Vancouver won't be building a ton of Skytrain (I actually think it'll be avg. 5y/segment), my questioning is the order. https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Documen...0A459174FB44A8870D00EFCE54124A01078D0698

We still need to fill in the White Rock-Guildford corridor at minimum with something (LRT is dead, so BRT or Skytrain.) Likely also double-track the ends of the Canada as well.

The stretch of ROW in question is about ~10m. Even without fences, those'd have to be some pretty skinny trams.

Eh, '04 was a different time and scale. You had Burnaby and the Tri-Cities yelling about how our grandkids would be paying off a $2 billion debt, and how nobody rode the B-Line so obviously nobody would ride the SkyTrain... now we're blowing through $3B on six stations and (correctly) calling for more.

Cut n' cover on Hastings'd be almost as politically suicidal as Broadway, savings or not. Port Coq, maybe, depending on how well the R3 does; I doubt it's very high on the list to begin with.

---

Said station would likely leave no room for a bus stop - compare and contrast Marine Drive Station with the Rogers/Fido lot. Ditto 16th, which could also use a viaduct.

Yeah, there's the SNG line too... so 28 years max (or 20, if your guess holds). Twinning Brighouse should only come up when 15,000 pphpd maxes out - or when we extend to Steveston/Riverport/Ladner/whatever - and neither seems all that likely yet.

[waves]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resi...int=file%2cxlsx&authkey=!AEVKRPUewNLiRtU

Fredinno! Your spreadsheet is out of date and you need to update it.

Originally Posted by waves

Your spreadsheet is a little out of date since it doesn't include the most recent 2018 Broadway Subway estimates. https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjWWltw_HSwzieAxT2DD43Oh6afvnw?e=9UjdcO