Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 1098

officedweller · #**21941** Posted **Sep 16, 2020, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

There was this from the report that provides a bit of insight:

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

mellowyellow · #**21942** Posted **Sep 16, 2020, 11:12 PM**

Honestly don't want the line going the Park Royal routes because that only benefits the one mall and the limited surrounding area with little development potential. In addition, knowing how DWV and West Van residents operate, that is a line that's wasted spend if we want to encourage growth. Going the westerly routes also create a long tunnel stretch (through Stanley Park) that is untappable for potential pickups on the way.

5B2 (Hastings to Second Narrows to Phibbs) is much more palatable for providing opportunities for increased density, both along the way and on the north shore (Phibbs / DNV / Lower Lynn is way more open to population growth). And unlike under Stanley Park, going through Hastings has a lot of along-the-route use! That entire hastings stretch, to PNE, and dare I dream: potentially even a stop for WCE before it crosses the inlet?

officedweller · #**21943** Posted **Sep 16, 2020, 11:51 PM**

Agreed with the "growth-shaping" aspects of 5B2 versus 2A & 3A and the East Van demographics also lean more towards transit use.

If it is built as an extension of the Expo Line from Waterfront, I would hope they also add an extra platform, like at Lougheed
or as a siding, so that in future, the reversal of a short turn train does not interfere with the headways of other trains.
I know Waterfront has crossovers on both sides of its platforn, which helps,
but dwell time in the station for a short turn would still interrupt frequency.

The Central Waterfront Hub study showed potential for another platform to the north.

Sheba · #**21944** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 12:08 AM**

I'm not sure which I like more, the yellow or purple line (can't remember the codes for them). I'm not a fan of adding a line to West Van for the reasons listed above. Also "the potential impacts associated with adding ridership onto a system that is already overcrowded in places". Why on earth would we want to add yet another line to downtown Van - esp as the plan is to keep the SeaBus with most of the options.

Migrant_Coconut · #**21945** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 3:49 AM**

Repeating myself, but if it's Hastings-Second Narrows, I'd suggest two spurs for an eventual intersection at Boundary - that way we can have a Hastings Line and a perpendicular Willingdon/North Shore Line.

cganuelas1995 · #**21946** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 4:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Agreed with the "growth-shaping" aspects of 5B2 versus 2A & 3A and the East Van demographics also lean more towards transit use.

If it is built as an extension of the Expo Line from Waterfront, I would hope they also add an extra platform, like at Lougheed
or as a siding, so that in future, the reversal of a short turn train does not interfere with the headways of other trains.
I know Waterfront has crossovers on both sides of its platforn, which helps,
but dwell time in the station for a short turn would still interrupt frequency.

The Central Waterfront Hub study showed potential for another platform to the north.

If it's going from the tail track east of the platform, then they would have to get an easement for a tunnel.

Bdawe · #**21947** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 5:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheba

I'm not sure which I like more, the yellow or purple line (can't remember the codes for them). I'm not a fan of adding a line to West Van for the reasons listed above. Also "the potential impacts associated with adding ridership onto a system that is already overcrowded in places". Why on earth would we want to add yet another line to downtown Van - esp as the plan is to keep the SeaBus with most of the options.

Because that's the single biggest transit destination between here and Toronto?

Metro-One · #**21948** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 1:12 PM**

Option 5 B East all the way.

The only one that has a chance of being feasible cost wise and has the best connectivity for the network as a whole. It could even include an extension between Brentwood and Metrotown.

For those commuting directly between the North Shore and downtown they already have the seabus which can have more vessels added and already offers a great mass transit service.

aberdeen5698 · #**21949** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 4:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chowhou

Why not both?

Increasing frequency is easy: you get frequency increases in direct proportion to the number of new vessels you put into service.

Decreasing transit time is hard: to make a significant boost in speed you have to replace existing vessels that weren't designed for that, you have to pay a lot more in operating costs for fuel (which makes it an environmental issue as well), you have to figure out how to mitigate wake damage, and you don't get a very big difference in transit times for all your effort because a large percentage of the trip time is spent in approach and docking maneuvering.

There's also the issue of weaving in and out of cross traffic in the harbour. If you push trip times too hard you affect service reliability when the Seabuses need to take a longer route around moving or anchored ships.

officedweller · #**21950** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 5:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

If it's going from the tail track east of the platform, then they would have to get an easement for a tunnel.

Yeah, that'll be the tough part - wrestling land (or SRWs) away from the railways.

Aroundtheworld · #**21951** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 8:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Option 5 B East all the way.

The only one that has a chance of being feasible cost wise and has the best connectivity for the network as a whole. It could even include an extension between Brentwood and Metrotown.

For those commuting directly between the North Shore and downtown they already have the seabus which can have more vessels added and already offers a great mass transit service.

The Seabus is fine for what it is but it has a limit. I doubt you could manage more than 4 operating at once (7.5 min frequency) and it's slow compared to Skytrain.

If the studies show the demand is there for a seamless line between Downtown and Lonsdale (via the Expo Line), then we shouldn't be afraid of cannibalizing the Seabus.

mellowyellow · #**21952** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 9:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Option 5 B East all the way.

The only one that has a chance of being feasible cost wise and has the best connectivity for the network as a whole. It could even include an extension between Brentwood and Metrotown.

For those commuting directly between the North Shore and downtown they already have the seabus which can have more vessels added and already offers a great mass transit service.

The Seabus is NOT a route for the "North Shore" and downtown. It's for LoLo and Downtown only! Hence, for example, Phibbs to downtown is a bus route, and NOT a Phibbs bus to Lonsdale Quay seabus to downtown.

See catchment below:

(Source: INSTPP)

jollyburger · #**21953** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 10:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

The Seabus is NOT a route for the "North Shore" and downtown. It's for LoLo and Downtown only! Hence, for example, Phibbs to downtown is a bus route, and NOT a Phibbs bus to Lonsdale Quay seabus to downtown.

See catchment below:

(Source: INSTPP)

SeaBus traffic numbers are skewed by the 2 zone fare vs buses. What percentage of traffic, I don't know but that should be a consideration. Also, at most times of the day if you are on either end of the North Shore the buses downtown aren't that bad.

GenWhy? · #**21954** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

The Seabus is NOT a route for the "North Shore" and downtown. It's for LoLo and Downtown only! Hence, for example, Phibbs to downtown is a bus route, and NOT a Phibbs bus to Lonsdale Quay seabus to downtown.

See catchment below:

(Source: INSTPP)

Didn't that whole report not define or describe that image at all besides saying it was "high level". I might have skimmed it back in the day too quickly but I don't recall reading it define that catchment between personal auto and transit.

Would be interesting to see a report completed in 2022 since the new RapidBus was implemented.

Tvisforme · #**21955** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Will it, though? An elevated line is not likely to get the most favourable reception on the North Shore; there was little support for replacing or expanding the Lions Gate Bridge two decades ago, and attitudes haven't changed that much. I'd argue that there might be more support for tunneled lines that bring rapid transit directly to existing exchanges in North and West Van - such as Phibbs, the Quay and Park Royal - then there would be for an elevated line across the North Shore. The most likely route for any cross-town service would be along the same roads that presently host the R2, and it was a struggle to add dedicated bus lanes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The Seabus is fine for what it is but it has a limit. I doubt you could manage more than 4 operating at once (7.5 min frequency) and it's slow compared to Skytrain.

If the studies show the demand is there for a seamless line between Downtown and Lonsdale (via the Expo Line), then we shouldn't be afraid of cannibalizing the Seabus.

One thing that works in favour of the SeaBus is that, while the vessel speed is not fast, the crossing itself is quite short and so the return on investment for a crossing is not great when you consider the high cost involved in a direct route in order to save five or ten minutes. Don't get me wrong, a direct route makes perfect sense as a concept but the expense involved in making it actually happen might be better spent on bringing rapid transit to other areas on the North Shore that are currently underserved in that respect.

jollyburger · #**21956** Posted **Sep 17, 2020, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Will it, though? An elevated line is not likely to get the most favourable reception on the North Shore; there was little support for replacing or expanding the Lions Gate Bridge two decades ago, and attitudes haven't changed that much. I'd argue that there might be more support for tunneled lines that bring rapid transit directly to existing exchanges in North and West Van - such as Phibbs, the Quay and Park Royal - then there would be for an elevated line across the North Shore. The most likely route for any cross-town service would be along the same roads that presently host the R2, and it was a struggle to add dedicated bus lanes.

I mean that's from the report that the ground isn't going to suit tunneling and they want to get elevated as soon as they get to the North Shore. Sure they could do cut and cover but not sure how that would work with the traffic/infrastructure. I think the lack of support for the bridge was even more from the Vancouver side that didn't want more traffic dumped into their downtown.

officedweller · #**21957** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean that's from the report that the ground isn't going to suit tunneling a...

My guess is that it's all hard granite over there.
There was also the nightmare that resulted during the tunnel boring of the Seymour-Capilano water tunnels.

jollyburger · #**21958** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 1:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

My guess is that it's all hard granite over there.
There was also the nightmare that resulted during the tunnel boring of the Seymour-Capilano water tunnels.

Around the base of the Lions Gate Bridge to Lonsdale Quay:

Quote:

Complex post glacial sequences of sediments that are deposited in low-lying areas above the Capilano Sediments. Within the area of interest, these units are found at surfaces at the mouth of the Lynn Creek, Seymour and Capilano River confluences with Burrard Inlet. These units extend further south into Burrard Inlet and are found to be 15m to 50m thick and consist of medium to coarse sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders. This unit ranges from loose to compact with layers subject to liquefaction. Tunnelling through this unit presents challenges related to its coarseness, abrasivity of large boulders, hydraulic conductivity, potential for the presence of contamination and saline groundwater, settlement and uncertain seismic performance.

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

officedweller · #**21959** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 2:06 AM**

Thanks!

aberdeen5698 · #**21960** Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mellowyellow

The Seabus is NOT a route for the "North Shore" and downtown. It's for LoLo and Downtown only.

There are a lot more people on the North Shore that use the Seabus than just lower Lonsdale. The Seabus station is the hub for most of the North Shore's bus network, and the scheduling makes the Seabus an easy transfer. The bus routes over the bridges are used mostly by people who are heading to destinations other than downtown.

Criticizing the Seabus for only handling downtown traffic is kind of like criticizing Skytrain for not going to SFU.