Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by waves

They should have a sensor that can measure vibrations in the cable while the system is off. An angle grinder or saw would definitely create something measurable. As soon as it detects vibrations, auto-start the gondola. If the cable is moving, you can't cut it.

They had notification when the person was approaching the tower it seems (so before they were cutting) and still weren't able to do much about it.

[Axe]

North Shore Rapid transit update


https://biv.com/article/2020/09/study-finds-five-possible-north-shore-rapid-transit-routes

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Axe

North Shore Rapid transit update


https://biv.com/article/2020/09/study-finds-five-possible-north-shore-rapid-transit-routes

Isn't the North Shore population somewhere below 185,000?

[Dengler Avenue]

So 222 with more coverage, an express version of 240, plus 3 other routes?

[Migrant_Coconut]

So they're willing to consider a new line from Willingdon or downtown, but not from Commercial?

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Isn't the North Shore population somewhere below 185,000?

So was Richmond's in '06 and Burnaby's in '86. Sounds like par for the course.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Axe

North Shore Rapid transit update


https://biv.com/article/2020/09/study-finds-five-possible-north-shore-rapid-transit-routes

If I'm reading this right, does this mean Lonsdale <-> Waterfront is effectively dead in the water? (pun sadly intended)

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So they're willing to consider a new line from Willingdon or downtown, but not from Commercial?



So was Richmond's in '06 and Burnaby's in '86. Sounds like par for the course.

Just going off I think the 2015 report I was gong through last month, mainly this part sums up my curiosity on billion dollar tunnels and bridges:

"North Shore’s core centres will continue to grow:

Compared to the rest of the Metro Vancouver region, the North Shore will have the lowest growth over the next 30 years. Most growth will be concentrated in core centres along the Burrard Inlet, from Ambleside through Lower Lonsdale to Lower Lynn Valley. Existing density in the main corridors and centres will intensify, with few new urban centres being created.

More trips will stay on the North Shore

North Shore travel patterns have changed over the past few decades from traditional “suburb to downtown” travel. Most trips are now made locally – 60 per cent of all trips made on the North Shore
start or end there"

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If I'm reading this right, does this mean Lonsdale <-> Waterfront is effectively dead in the water? (pun sadly intended)

I think it's still possible. Stage 2 also suggests a rebuild of the Canada Line through downtown to enable a continuous line to the North Shore.

Standalone line was found to be the lowest performing in ridership, and I also personally wonder where they would locate the O&M centre with it.

Not sure if they looked at extension of the expo line directly to Lonsdale. I don't think so?

[logicbomb]

Know most would disagree, but one line that goes down Hastings, over Second Narrows, touching Lower Seymour before going to Lonsdale would pretty much improve transit access for Hastings and most of the North Vancouver.

The major con is that you add 15-20min on a trip going into downtown from Lonsdale Quay but the vast improvements to the network far ought weigh this.

[madog222]

Here is the study itself:

https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/9-15_Burrard_Inlet_study.pdf

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Isn't the North Shore population somewhere below 185,000?

I feel like it could be a replacement for the North Shore bus routes going to/from Vancouver/Burnaby so they don't have to rely on the chokepoint which is the Lions Gate Bridge.

[waves]

So I read through the entire report. Here are my thoughts:

• While some here are lamenting the death of 1A, it was completely predictable and unsurprising. We have known for quite some time that this option is unfeasible. I am very confused as to why it was kept on the table as an option at the end of the report despite (1) the extreme expense and inconvenience of rebuilding the downtown Canada line (2) the ridership penalty from a deep transfer at waterfront (3) the steep slopes on the north shore side and the minimum turning radius of the tunnel bore, and (4) ruling out the possibility of a spur track, the only other way this option is remotely sensible (maybe only reconstruct the vertical curve right after Yaletown to get the grades required, rather than a reconstruction all the way to waterfront station?)
• Option 2A-Mid seems sensible, however it's termination point at Keith Road and Lonsdale rather than 13th or further up Lonsdale is strange. It has the most challenging ground to work with in terms of a tunnel
• Option 3A has a lot of track that goes through a lot of unimportant land on Pemberton Ave along with tight turns and property impacts. It looks like Capilano Road is not an option because of the water tunnel although this isn't explicitly stated.
• Option 5B2 is only appropriate in my mind if it turns into a loop with 2A. It would replace the express buses from Phibbs but provides no time saving benefits for lower lonsdale, central lonsdale or even lynn valley really for downtown. The only real benefit you get for North Shore folk, would be for those in west of the highway in seymour.
• The nonsensical solution of adding more to an already inadequate and old bridge (Option 5C) has rightfully died.
• Option 5B West in my mind just can't compete with the far superior 5B East in terms of network connectivity and in terms of construction simplicity. Option 5B East fits the intial INSTPP ridership travel destination the best out of all the options provided.

[jollyburger]

Any of the bridge option next to the Second Narrows I would go with just so I can ride it

But I think the 3A option makes the most sense. None of the alternate stations on the North Shore are a "must" hit for me so not going to Park Royal or Phibbs Exchange aren't deal breakers.

And I still thinking going up Lonsdale a bit might actually help the ridership numbers if that encourages some more redevelopment. Lions Gate/13th and then maybe 19/20. There seems more redevelopable land there even when comparing it with Park Royal/Capilano Village/Lower Lynn.

[officedweller]

For reference, from the report.

Route 5B2 has been mentioned since the 1990s.
It wouldn't provide a time savings for those headed to downtown, but it would add frequency over the SeaBus.

I could also see a future extension/spur switch added for the segment to Brentwood for future network connectivity,
creating branched line originating from either the north shore (as shown below) or downtown depending on where the switch is placed.



https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/9-15_Burrard_Inlet_study.pdf

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So they're willing to consider a new line from Willingdon or downtown, but not from Commercial?

I suppose from a development potential perspective, Commercial Drive area is also dead in the water for significant town centre densification due to local opposition, whereas Brentwood already is a Regional Town Centre (but from a transit network perspective, it's not good unless it is a branch as noted above).

[mellowyellow]

5B2 looks to be the most sensible:
- It'll get the most votes from other mayors east of Vancouver (Translink council)
- It activates the northeast part of Vancouver and picks up the Hastings traffic along the way.
- It actually IS time savings for Lonsdale folks (eventhough Seabus is preserved) because this doesn't land them at the Waterfront pier with a walk, it lands them into downtown.
- According to the INSTPP, most of north shore's inter-shore traffic goes to Vancouver (not Burnaby, which is a very far 2nd place). A line going to Brentwood just isn't serving a very primary need.
- Going east to the Phibbs Exchange route has much more opportunity to densify than going to Park Royal (which truthfully isn't that development-friendly). The opportunnity to increase density with the new line (in addition to serving/relieving existing traffic) is a key point here. The entire Hastings is much more buildable than trying to go west with little increased density potential along the way. DNV is also much more density-friendly than DWV.


If IWMB is so insufficient, would it be possible to combine this project to build a new bridge that can 1) increase vehicle capacity for the bridge for Hwy 1; 2) Accommodate Skytrain; 3) Increase pedestrian/bike capacity; 4) Improve its safety for ships/crashes/earthquakes/maintenance/etc.?

Also wondering if they'd consider 5B2 as an extension to Canada Line instead of Expo Line. Not sure how the alignment on the connection at downtown/waterfront would work tho

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

- Going east to the Phibbs Exchange route has much more opportunity to densify than going to Park Royal (which truthfully isn't that development-friendly). The opportunnity to increase density with the new line (in addition to serving/relieving existing traffic) is a key point here. The entire Hastings is much more buildable than trying to go west with little increased density potential along the way. DNV is also much more density-friendly than DWV.

I think Hastings Sunrise will be just against development as much as West Vancouver. Look at Commercial Drive.

[chowhou]

Is there a reason why Translink won't just run faster Seabuses? Sydney Harbour seems to be perfectly fine with 26 knot catamarans which blow our 12 knot put-puts out of the water. Hell, they put 22 knot vessels up the Parramatta River which is less than half the width of the Fraser.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Is there a reason why Translink won't just run faster Seabuses? Sydney Harbour seems to be perfectly fine with 26 knot catamarans which blow our 12 knot put-puts out of the water. Hell, they put 22 knot vessels up the Parramatta River which is less than half the width of the Fraser.

I don't know what the arrangements are in Sydney, but when the Seabus system was designed it was intended to run with a 12-minute turnaround. But they found that the wake was too disruptive and so it's been limited to the current quarter-hour schedule.

Also, don't forget that the speed of the Seabus is not really the issue - it's the frequency. If you cut the frequency in half by running twice as many boats then you've reduced the average wait time (which is part of the overall transit time) by close to 5 minutes. That's better than you could do with increased crossing speeds because even if you doubled the top speed the average speed, including approaches and maneuvering to dock, would be a lot lower.

[jollyburger]

And the connection to Waterfront is getting narrower with the Centerm expansion and there's a lot of potential conflicts with other users of the inlet.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Also, don't forget that the speed of the Seabus is not really the issue - it's the frequency. If you cut the frequency in half by running twice as many boats then you've reduced the average wait time (which is part of the overall transit time) by close to 5 minutes. That's better than you could do with increased crossing speeds because even if you doubled the top speed the average speed, including approaches and maneuvering to dock, would be a lot lower.

Frequency matters for sure for the broader transit system, and Translink is clearly putting some more money into bringing more Seabuses into service, but speed matters for transit effectiveness as well. Speed increases frequency, improves the transit experience, makes transit more competitive with cars, and amplifies the effectiveness of connecting services by reducing overall travel time for users.

I've read the "wake was too disruptive" sentence in the Wikipedia page too, but I haven't really seen any concrete evidence of that. I find it hard to believe that it's A-OK in Sydney Harbour which is half the width of Burrard Inlet, but it's too disruptive here.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

And the connection to Waterfront is getting narrower with the Centerm expansion and there's a lot of potential conflicts with other users of the inlet.

I've been to Sydney Harbour and Circular Quay, it would take a hell of a lot to make Burrard Inlet as restrictive as that waterway.