Transit Fantasies

[officedweller]

There's also the question of creating an even bigger transit hub in a neighborhood that refuses to accept significant high density growth.
I think another option would be to create a new hub at Clark Drive & GNW.
Add a new station to the Expo Line and tie it to VCC-Clark Station.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But it's not a one-way split - the 4 & 7 stay on Cordova westbound, with a stop in a GP lane like the 44 & 50 at present. Three routes isn't enough to justify a dedicated bus lane - the 44 becomes a RapidBus, maybe.

WRT eastbound, we're talking about limited convoying for 5-8 routes for one stop (though the N-S and E-W lines should definitely have individual bays), then they split again. Waterfront ain't exactly Phibbs or Surrey.

I think I need a visual representation of what you're looking for.

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's also the question of creating an even bigger transit hub in a neighborhood that refuses to accept significant high density growth.
I think another option would be to create a new hub at Clark Drive & GNW.
Add a new station to the Expo Line and tie it to VCC-Clark Station.

Which is actually a good thing to an extent. Plenty of room to expand.

Clark Drive is industrial, and I'd question the desire to get rid of it.

[SpongeG]

My transit fantasy is a metro system similar to those in Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, serving the outerlying areas better, connecting the airports.

The main hub/station in Surrey. Three lines coming into it, one from South Surrey/White Rock, One from Abbotsford, one from Maple Ridge. Somewhere in Walnut Grove those two lines could share tracks to get to the main train station in Surrey. It could also accommodate the potential Cascades HSR.

From Surrey there would be three lines out, One to Richmond and YVR, so you could have YXX-YVR connected. One to Downtown Vancouver and one to the North Shore, maybe via Brentwood. LEaving Surrey the trains could share track space onto their destinations, maybe have the trains split at Queensborough/Annacis Island, Then split again somewhere as one goes downtown and one goes to the north shore.

They don't need to interact with the current skytrain system. Langley will be served by the skytrain extension or a station along Highway 1 coming in from Abbotsford. Some stations can be located near to the existing skytrain ones but both would be independent of each other for the most part.

Surrey station would be something like these

Melbourne Southern Cross

vline.com

Perth

flickr

[scottN]

Originally Posted by waves

Sadly this has to stay in the TF forum until they add the Commercial-Lonsdale connection to their short list. I have a 3D model I have been working on, but it's not finished. I drew quick sketch in the meantime.

Nice!

But I think you need to leave room for the Central Valley Greenway at the surface level. A centre platform would accomodate this a little better since the pedestrian and cycling path could be over top of the outermost track. No spanish solution or cross platform transfers in that configuration though.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I think I need a visual representation of what you're looking for.

Something like this. North continues as normal. SB gets bus bulge; 4/7 use the front bay, the rest use the middle, layovers at the back (lengths of each bay negotiable). Dashed space is charter/taxi parking, dark green is median.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Surrey station would be something like these

Melbourne Southern Cross

vline.com

Perth

flickr

I don't know about the other stuff, but it would be nice to have the Surrey HSR or a Surrey Commuter Rail station to use something like the Ballantyne Pier as the base of its structure (break it apart and move it in pieces). Saves the Port the trouble of having to work around the structure, and allows the complete restoration of a historic building. Instead of being used as a warehouse for sawdust. https://kiewit.com/projects/transportation/marine-port-facilities/ballantyne-pier-redevelopment/

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Something like this. North continues as normal. SB gets bus bulge; 4/7 use the front bay, the rest use the middle, layovers at the back (lengths of each bay negotiable). Dashed space is charter/taxi parking, dark green is median.

Hmm. So which buses would be in each bay side?

Also, what is the red? It looks like Cordova is narrowed to 1 mixed-traffic lane.

[Migrant_Coconut]

TransLink's go-to colour coding for bus lanes is apparently red. Bay assignments explained above.

SB is, yes. If it's really a problem, add the median to the SB space, but it shouldn't be - traffic's relatively light on Cordova, and the buses should be queuing up in the exit lane instead of pulling out into the GP.

[Aroundtheworld]

Thought I'd share this. A lot of focus is on a North Shore link further east near Lonsdale and the Second Narrows. I think eventually though there will also need to be a link through the First Narrows that goes through Stanley Park.



On the North Shore, I have the line initially stopping at Park Royal, however, it could be extended from there to Dundarave, east to Lonsdale or even north to Grouse Mountain This line would also serve the West End and make access to the beaches and Davie Street convenient. I incorporated a bidirectional loop to serve the West End and would also go through South Downtown, Yaletown and the Stadium.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TransLink's go-to colour coding for bus lanes is apparently red. Bay assignments explained above.

SB is, yes. If it's really a problem, add the median to the SB space, but it shouldn't be - traffic's relatively light on Cordova, and the buses should be queuing up in the exit lane instead of pulling out into the GP.

I mean which are the ‘rest’ in the context of the SB buses?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean which are the ‘rest’ in the context of the SB buses?

Seems pretty obvious to me - 3, 8, 10, any other N-S line that needs to be rerouted to the "hub." Hold the pedestrians long enough for the 4 & 7 to go straight and the rest to turn right, or just use a scramble.

[mellowyellow]

Considering the higher densification potential on the Phibbs Exchange side, and along Hastings (if it's a Hastings to Phibbs route), it seems more value-adding. Also Translink does seem to be putting more effort into ensuring Phibbs as a transit hub with the recent addition of the express bus to Metrotown, and for the northshore rapidbus. It just seems more of a natural progression with a crossing at 2nd narrows.

Meanwhile, crossing at 1st Narrows to service Ambleside / Park Royal is not a high densifying opportunity (cuz of the area's current build-out, and the DWV pushbacks). Sending a skytrain line that way just seems like a small potential gain in comparison.

[scottN]

I never realized this before, but Pender Street (1 block south of Hastings) has a 99 foot wide right of way from Victoria Drive all the way to boundary road. That's as wide or wider than Hastings itself, and it's the same width as the central park line right of way that the Expo Line uses in East Vancouver. I think it would be totally reasonable to run an above grade rapid transit line through this corridor. 99 feet is wide enough to have an elevated or trenched line and maintain vehicle access to all properties (some of which don't have lane access). West of Victoria the street is narrow (66 feet) but all properties on both sides have lane access and it's only a couple of block to reach the industrial area which starts at McLean. I think a line could go above grade as far west as Hastings & Campbell which would be a good location for a Strathcona station and tunnel portal. From this point it's only 2km of tunnelling to reach waterfront

Some property acquisition would be necessary for stations at Nanaimo and Commercial Drive and in the vicinity of the tunnel portal. The Expo line stations pretty much consume the whole right of way and don't leave room for streets to go around them. Much of the needed land around the tunnel portal is undeveloped however (i.e. east and west of the Burrard Inlet line just south of Hastings). At Renfrew and Pender there is already a big parking lot where you could put a station.

If the tunnel portal were further east near Victoria Drive, then less property acquisition would be needed for the Commerical Drive and Strathcona stations since the platforms themselves would be underneath the street (I think the Yaletown station on the canada line is built underneath a 66 foot wide ROW on Davie Street so this should be achievable on Pender as well).

Also having the station excavations on Pender Street would mean that Hastings would not be disrupted by construction.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Seems pretty obvious to me - 3, 8, 10, any other N-S line that needs to be rerouted to the "hub." Hold the pedestrians long enough for the 4 & 7 to go straight and the rest to turn right, or just use a scramble.

Sorry for being late. I don't think you can narrow Cordova below 4 lanes before Howe. That part isn't the most used road, but it's not exactly unused either. Let alone the 2-lane at the Harbour Center Chokepoint. 4 lanes narrowing to 2 right before the CBD. What?

Blocking off Seymour also doesn't seem like a great idea either. Any traffic going to Waterfront has to divert to Homer or Burrard then.


I honestly don't see the point in forcing the bus bays to only be 1 way. Even in your proposals, the space is there. You just infilled it in. I see it's not 100% critical (the buses loop around the area), but it is something that's nice to have, so buses can loop around to Granville or Burrard and back to Waterfront instead of having to bypass Waterfront. (Eg. Route 20 could use this method- dedicated bus malls are better than the virtual and curb lanes on Hastings).

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

Considering the higher densification potential on the Phibbs Exchange side, and along Hastings (if it's a Hastings to Phibbs route), it seems more value-adding. Also Translink does seem to be putting more effort into ensuring Phibbs as a transit hub with the recent addition of the express bus to Metrotown, and for the northshore rapidbus. It just seems more of a natural progression with a crossing at 2nd narrows.

Meanwhile, crossing at 1st Narrows to service Ambleside / Park Royal is not a high densifying opportunity (cuz of the area's current build-out, and the DWV pushbacks). Sending a skytrain line that way just seems like a small potential gain in comparison.

That was the logic Millennium Line phase 1 was built. It became a white elephant that caused the Canada Line to be underbuilt due to its failing ridership projections.

Originally Posted by scottN

I never realized this before, but Pender Street (1 block south of Hastings) has a 99 foot wide right of way from Victoria Drive all the way to boundary road. That's as wide or wider than Hastings itself, and it's the same width as the central park line right of way that the Expo Line uses in East Vancouver. I think it would be totally reasonable to run an above grade rapid transit line through this corridor. 99 feet is wide enough to have an elevated or trenched line and maintain vehicle access to all properties (some of which don't have lane access). West of Victoria the street is narrow (66 feet) but all properties on both sides have lane access and it's only a couple of block to reach the industrial area which starts at McLean. I think a line could go above grade as far west as Hastings & Campbell which would be a good location for a Strathcona station and tunnel portal. From this point it's only 2km of tunnelling to reach waterfront

Some property acquisition would be necessary for stations at Nanaimo and Commercial Drive and in the vicinity of the tunnel portal. The Expo line stations pretty much consume the whole right of way and don't leave room for streets to go around them. Much of the needed land around the tunnel portal is undeveloped however (i.e. east and west of the Burrard Inlet line just south of Hastings). At Renfrew and Pender there is already a big parking lot where you could put a station.

If the tunnel portal were further east near Victoria Drive, then less property acquisition would be needed for the Commerical Drive and Strathcona stations since the platforms themselves would be underneath the street (I think the Yaletown station on the canada line is built underneath a 66 foot wide ROW on Davie Street so this should be achievable on Pender as well).

Also having the station excavations on Pender Street would mean that Hastings would not be disrupted by construction.

Pender St. 11m.
Hastings: 27m.

How are you finding the road widths? I think you're getting the calculations wrong, because I'm measuring in Strathcona.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Pender St. 11m.
Hastings: 27m.

How are you finding the road widths? I think you're getting the calculations wrong, because I'm measuring in Strathcona.

I pulled the right of way widths from vanmap property viewer (https://maps.vancouver.ca/property/) which has a layer that indicates the street and laneway right of way widths. I think you must be measuring the road widths from curb to curb. The right of way includes the streets, sidewalks, plus land where residents have encroached on the city owned property. On some residential streets that can be a substantial distance. The city can build on it if they need it (for instance Point Grey road to cite a recent high profile example). It looks like in Strathcona many houses are built right to the front of the property line, which isn't allowed anymore in residential zones.

Vanmap says that in Strathcona, the Hasting Street right of way is 99 feet and Pender is 66. It's only east of Victoria drive where Pender goes to 99 feet. It's pretty obvious from Victoria to Templeton where there is a median boulevard, but the wide right of way actually continues all the way to Boundary Road.

The centre platform stations on the expo line are about 50 feet wide (I checked Main Street and Commercial-Broadway). Side platform stations tend to be wider.

No doubt there are more of these hidden wide streets in the city. The only other one that I know of is Charles Street, which also has a 99 foot right of way from Nanaimo to Boundary

[Migrant_Coconut]

Wonder if a Pender SkyTrain would create enough capacity to make a tram viable - that'd solve the need for "local" rapid transit on Hastings itself.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Sorry for being late. I don't think you can narrow Cordova below 4 lanes before Howe. That part isn't the most used road, but it's not exactly unused either. Let alone the 2-lane at the Harbour Center Chokepoint. 4 lanes narrowing to 2 right before the CBD. What?

Blocking off Seymour also doesn't seem like a great idea either. Any traffic going to Waterfront has to divert to Homer or Burrard then.


I honestly don't see the point in forcing the bus bays to only be 1 way. Even in your proposals, the space is there. You just infilled it in. I see it's not 100% critical (the buses loop around the area), but it is something that's nice to have, so buses can loop around to Granville or Burrard and back to Waterfront instead of having to bypass Waterfront. (Eg. Route 20 could use this method- dedicated bus malls are better than the virtual and curb lanes on Hastings).

Having taken the 4 and 7 regularly at several points in the day, the only time Cordova really has a problem is peak rush hour, and that's never going to be solved.
WB is already narrowed to one lane at the intersection, it's EB-only beyond Richards, Pender and Hastings are literally next door, and overall car traffic downtown is dropping, so Cordova having all its lanes isn't exactly critical to overall traffic flow. Feel free to ditch the curb extension for two complete WB lanes if you're worried; I think that section of curb is fine as-is, but you expressed concerns about too many pedestrians.

Taxis can use Granville Mall like they already do... and all this is assuming the CWHF fails, so there wouldn't be that many non-transit commuters wanting to go to Waterfront anyway.

The bus bays are already one-way right now. Unless you want a busway in the median and custom left-loading vehicles?

[cganuelas1995]

Would it be possible/economically practical to bury some induction wires underneath the road so they can be used to charge electric cars and busses?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Would it be possible/economically practical to bury some induction wires underneath the road so they can be used to charge electric cars and busses?

Not really. It's already hard enough to wirelessly charge your phone if it's over half a centimetre from a charging pad. Imagine how much power we'd need to pump through the roads to charge a circuit which might be half a metre from the coils. Not to mention the fact that roads squeeze and crumble over time so the maintenance costs would be insane.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Not really. It's already hard enough to wirelessly charge your phone if it's over half a centimetre from a charging pad. Imagine how much power we'd need to pump through the roads to charge a circuit which might be half a metre from the coils. Not to mention the fact that roads squeeze and crumble over time so the maintenance costs would be insane.

Induction charging is just extremely wasteful in general, even for phones.

The solution for cars and transit is probably going to be overhead catenary for long distance routes and battery for short trips. Like the catenary can be raised and lowered on such vehicles, but you're not going to stick those on tiny cars. Try coaches and RV/long-haul trucks.

But that may still require some changes in infrastructure, and unless we're willing to commit to tunneling through most of BC's mountains to get a relatively flat/straight route between cities, we may as well just commit to HSR.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Overhead wires sounds suspiciously like PRT, and we all know how effective that one is. Sounds better and easier to just outfit every rest stop with charging stations.