Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[AkariAkaza]

If they ever choose 2A, 3A, or 5B2, I really hope they make it as a new line, instead of an Expo Line Extension.

[NetMapel]

To me the purple line, 5B/5C makes the most amount of sense for long-term planning purpose. You add an additional line that intersects with Brentwood station from north to south and you can eventually extend it along Willingdon Ave down to Metrotown station. Along Willingdon Ave you have BCIT and EA Games as major destinations as well in addition to the other major stops. It will make our skytrain system much more dynamic similar to extending the Millennium line to intersect Canada Line and promote the various city centres to more prominence. That stretch of Willingdon Ave is already scheduled to get a B-line bus expansion next year (or later due to covid-19 messing up plans as always). So it will be natural to see it be upgraded to an eventual skytrain line to replace the B-line in the future.

[trofirhen]

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.

Yes, and in addition, I understand that the direct Waterfront - Lonsdale tunnel option is unfeasible because of harbour depth. It seems a tunnel to the east or west is the only option.
Personally, I think the 3A Brockton Point route is preferable, but I don't know how feasible that is.

[scryer]

Seems like we are all a bit divided on the preferred option. 'Tis gonna be a fun thread .

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree and 5B2 is honestly my preferred route as well for those exact reasons. North east Vancouver is honestly a hidden gem along Hastings street and it could be a good opportunity to update the PNE grounds as well, assuming that they would get a station.

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

- 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.

The 5B2 route and the Seabus would provide capacity relief to each other as well. People east of Lonsdale Quay will now commute to the nearest Skytrain station to go to downtown Vancouver as opposed to commuting to the Seabus.

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.

And there is also nothing stopping city from planning to extend it into Park Royal. But yeah, I agree with you on this point as well.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

To me the purple line, 5B/5C makes the most amount of sense for long-term planning purpose. You add an additional line that intersects with Brentwood station from north to south and you can eventually extend it along Willingdon Ave down to Metrotown station. Along Willingdon Ave you have BCIT and EA Games as major destinations as well in addition to the other major stops. It will make our skytrain system much more dynamic similar to extending the Millennium line to intersect Canada Line and promote the various city centres to more prominence. That stretch of Willingdon Ave is already scheduled to get a B-line bus expansion next year (or later due to covid-19 messing up plans as always). So it will be natural to see it be upgraded to an eventual skytrain line to replace the B-line in the future.

And eventually, you can intersect it with a Hastings Line to Stanley Park, creating a win-win for everybody.

Unfortunately, TransLink appears to want an extension of an existing line (for logistical purposes?), and to serve all the North Shore riders going downtown. I guess they could add spurs for an eventual interchange at Hastings-Boundary...

[logan5]

Damn. I was hoping the study would explain what, if any, existing Skytrain line the yellow Hastings line would tie into. The study explored a Canada Line spur for the blue zone, so I wonder if they are exploring the idea of an extension of the Canada Line at Waterfront to tie into the yellow zone. Of course the Expo Line would be far easier to extend up Hastings, but the C Line's capacity is better suited to North Van, and Expo Line capacity would be better suited for a future DT relief line.

And I suppose the Hastings alignment would be tunneled? They didn't touch on that either. A 5 km tunnel down Hastings would be at least 2 billion dollars, plus the rest of the cost of that route.

[Henbo]

I think option 5B would be the relative weak choice (for ridership) because:

• Majority of trips to/from the north shore are to/from Vancouver
• Rapid transit between Downtown/north shore would be time competitive with auto, unlike along Hwy 1 corridor
• Higher density of pop. and emp. in Vancouver makes it more optimal for transit as you need to walk to/from the line to your final destination
• Better transit connections exist Downtown, enhancing the network effect of the whole system (all roads (busses) lead to Vancouver)
• Could make the construction of an eventual IWMB replacement more difficult

Sure there's room to grow (especially around Phibbs Exchange), but I don't know if it would out perform from a ridership standpoint

I also think people over-estimate the seabus and under-estimate the transit connections between Park Royal and Phibbs to Downtown.

I still feel a continuous line, most directly, to Lonsdale would generate the highest ridership. If it's too technically challenging (and costly), I'd still favour trying to reduce the travel time between Lonsdale and Downtown as much as possible.

But the system should also be designed with future extensions possible. And Park Royal is a huge destination for trips originating on the North Shore as well.

This study mostly focused on the feasibility of the crossing, so I wonder if there is still room to play around with the alignment.

I'm wondering if it would be best to do the Brockton Point tunnel crossing, with a spur to Park Royal AND Lonsdale. Total distance of the extension would be equal, if not slightly less than Option 2A.

Maybe it could be configured so every second train goes direct between Park Royal and Lonsdale. Would also allow for future extensions (including over the second narrows)


Source: Henbo

[ilikeredheads]

A quick TL: DR for those who don't ahve time to read the full report
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/north-shore-rapid-transit-study-skytrain

The plan and profile pics present a better look at the engineering challenge involved.

Option 5C to use existing Ironworkers bridge was eliminated because the bridge is too old to support new structure.

Option 2A and 3A has 2 problems: both assume it'll be a branch line from Expo so train frequency will be affected. The tunnel has a 6% gradient approaching the North Shore. Yes, LIM powered trains can tackle it but it may increase wear and tear on the trains. Also, good luck dealing with the ice buildups when it snows.

Options 1A: This one should've been deemed infeasible as well but I guess they are doing it for PR's sakes. Build a tunnel across the longest and deepest part of the inlet? no thanks. There are 2 sub-options: build new separate line, or rebuild 1.1km of Canada Line and lower Waterfront and VanCityCenter by about 25m. Clearly 1A makes the least sense.

Option 5B2: extend existing Expo line from Waterfront along hastings, via a new bridge next to Iron Workers, and then loop back to Londsdale.

Option 5B: new line from Brentwood and via new bridge next to Iron Workers and end at Lonsdale.

If I had to choose, I'd go with 5B. I prefer having a north/south line running from Lonsdale to Brentwood (with possible extension to Metrotown) than an indirect detour running on Hastings. Option 5B2 will not provide time savings compared to Seabus (in fact, it'll probably take longer). If Expo were to be extended along Hastings, I think it's better to have it terminate at Kootney Loop, which will act as a transfer station with the north/south line.

Tbh, I think the study will say all options will be extremely expensive and the money is better spent getting more seabuses.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[logan5]

Option 5B2 is a seamless eastward extension of the existing Expo Line from Waterfront Station that travels under Hastings Street, and reaches the North Shore with a new bridge across the Second Narrows. Other stations will be located along Hastings Street at Main Street, Commercial Drive, Nanaimo Street, and Renfrew Street (PNE/Hastings Park), as well as Phibbs Exchange, Moodyville, and Lonsdale on the North Shore.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/north-shore-rapid-transit-study-skytrain

Is the Expo Line extension and station placement in the study?

Edit - Lol. Upon further review, it is in fact in the study.

[Tvisforme]

I'm curious, did they ever consider an option to loop from downtown through Park Royal, across the North Shore to Phibbs, and then back across the inlet and along Hastings? That would allow a two-way circular route that would boost cross-Shore transit and supplement the Millennium and Expo lines for east-west travel. The SeaBus could still operate under that scenario.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i like 1A, but as that is really unlikely.

3A is my 2nd choice.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

I'm curious, did they ever consider an option to loop from downtown through Park Royal, across the North Shore to Phibbs, and then back across the inlet and along Hastings? That would allow a two-way circular route that would boost cross-Shore transit and supplement the Millennium and Expo lines for east-west travel. The SeaBus could still operate under that scenario.

No.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

But the thing about marine transport is that it's quite difficult to increase speed, partly because of collateral damage like wake, partly because it drastically increases fuel costs, and partly because you can only actually realize that higher speed for around half of the overall transit time (remember the fast ferries?) Since trip time is the sum of wait time and transit time, removing 5 minutes from either one gives you the same result. In the case of the Seabus with it's (currently) long wait times, that's the easiest component to tackle.

Originally Posted by chowhou

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 didn't realize that it was mentioned in Wikipedia, I just remember reading the press articles about during the years when it was proposed, built and launched.

[WarrenC12]

Looks like the Seabus isn't going anywhere.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Since trip time is the sum of wait time and transit time, removing 5 minutes from either one gives you the same result. In the case of the Seabus with it's (currently) long wait times, that's the easiest component to tackle.

Why not both?

[jollyburger]

All of the North Shore component will be above ground so I think where you place the guideway is going to limit their line choices in the end.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i like 1A, but as that is really unlikely.

3A is my 2nd choice.

The problem with 1A is they didn't look at doing it with the Expo Line which is much more feasible. I'm not sure why they didn't do this.

A lot of things that are bit baffling about this study.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The problem with 1A is they didn't look at doing it with the Expo Line which is much more feasible. I'm not sure why they didn't do this.

A lot of things that are bit baffling about this study.

From the study in the 1A section there's a curious throw-away line:

Alternative options such as an independent line from Waterfront to future transit systems (i.e. BroadwaySubway Project) may also be explored.

Perhaps this is the solution to the depth problem.

[officedweller]

The odd thing about the 1A depth and tranfer penalty problem is that there's already a transfer penalty with the long Seabus walkway and that doesn't really stop people from using the Seabus.