Transit Fantasies

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I don't think the Canada Line will be rebuilt. It would be cheaper and more beneficial to build out a parallel North/South Line. And I'm not even sure it needs to go all the way to the downtown peninsula. Once the M-Line is built, we may see a significant shift away from downtown along that corridor. A North/South Line along Knight/Fraser (could even be elevated for a lot of its length) connecting with the M-Line at VCC-Clark (maybe with an infill station on the Expo Line there as well) and then continuing on to the Hastings Line.

Or how about a Victoria Line. The #20 Victoria Bus is 5th busiest bus route after all (I don't know how much is because of the section on Hastings, though)

I know Arbutus seems like an obvious choice, but in respect to TOD, East Vancouver probably has more potential. You could cross the bridge East of Knight Street and continue on to become an East/West Line in Richmond along Bridgeport... or depending on where the traffic is coming from on the Canada Line, turn down Marine and terminate at Marine Gateway.

Roads aren't only going to be used by autonomous cars. We may see some degree of automation on highways, but autonomous cars will be mixed with other vehicles that use up every bit of width (like buses) for a long time to come.


Which I'm not sure is a bad idea. The parks board wants to shut Stanley Park down to cars before 2050 anyhow. Reducing traffic through there is also good. One idea I was thinking about is having the center lane a one-way transit-only use. Not sure how long it would take to cross the Lion's Gate but it could work if signalled properly.


True, but downtown COULD be better served by the Lions Gate bridge and either a tram-line or rapid bus service.


I'm mixed on it. But it does have one VERY significant advantage, you increase capacity on the Expo Line in the OFF-Peak direction. Hastings Riders going to Stadium will just stay on the train.

Hastings to Metrotown
Hastings to Commercial Drive

You get to use your off-peak direction more efficiently. I know it makes the Expo line longer, but terminating Expo Trains at Phibbs could potentially solve that as well. Perhaps additional tracks and switches to shunt around problems as the line gets longer.

One needs to be careful about the assumption a parallel line solves all your problems. I'm not against it, but it's a naive assumption.
You'll be attracting new users by its nature, reducing the ability for the parallel line to provide relief. It's also not really serving the same users, only a subsection of them.


The multi-billion dollar relief line (as originally proposed-the short version) was only expected to cover the immediate growth in ridership from population growth to 2031. The Yonge North extension required the switch to the Ontario Line (Relief Line North)- and it's still not a long-term solution.


I wonder if there's a precedent for a 4-track subway. So the old subway is 2 tracks, then 2 tracks are built on above/below the old tracks. Wonder how well that works.


Also, side note, but Knight is not a good selection. It's a car road due to the Knight St. Bridge funneling traffic into it.


I'm actually referring to the BRT guide. https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/master/...dway-configurations#fixed-guided-busways

Each lane is 3.3m wide. Better automation and guidance could theoretically get it down to 3m.

Certainly cars are narrower, but there's only 2 lanes and some extra stuff here, not much to work with.

I guess you could have 4 lanes be for cars (say, 2.3m - the width of an SUV generally maxes out at 2m) and have the BRT lane be for trucks as well. Banning trucks on Marine allows the use of a dedicated tram-train. Ditto what's happen to the buses on Marine.
Note that this would leave 2.8m of extra space on Marine. That's either bike lanes, station platforms, or center turn lanes.

I'm not entirely against the idea either.
Lions Gate and the entire 99 corridor across West Van and DT Vancouver is hell to get across by car.

99 would need to be rereouted, though.

Though, using the same calculations for above for Lions' Gate would allow for a tram-train or BRT across Lions' Gate if the 2 remaining car lanes are all automated (and no trucks!) If you're going the tram-train route, you need to find somewhere to move the buses off of, however.
You could connect a tram to the proposed DT streetcar and Arbutus as well.

You know what? I'm starting to like this idea.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I agree, although being able to use the reverse-peak of the EXPO line is pretty attractive. The trick would be getting over to Georgia (but I suppose the same problem exists when trying to get from Waterfront to Hastings).

Not sure if the old Railway corridor that bisects Tinseltown would work or not but if so, that also goes directly under Stadium station, offering another place to Transfer.

Something like this perhaps? Only one new station needed downtown:

As long as Tinseltown is still standing, that's not going to be easy.

Perhaps the plan would involve demolishing the site and redeveloping it?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Maybe, maybe not. Right now the Expo's operating at 15k right now, and despite serving a longer corridor than Cambie/Richmond, the downtown segment isn't excessively crowded. Though it probably wouldn't hurt to have RapidBuses on Burrard and Granville...

Above-grade north of King Ed was never likely: even if the disruption wasn't a deal breaker, the elevation would be.



If the Purple Line would be useless to Vancouver commuters, then a consolidation at Waterfront would be useless to anybody east of Commercial. Not much point in consolidation when each Narrows serves different catchments entirely - and having Canada Line riders switch east on a 41st Line to get to the North Shore would ease the hypothetical crunch in the Broadway/Downtown stretch.

Why wouldn't TransLink bring the Park Royal extension to the SeaBus if it were possible? And why would they drag the tunnel west out into the deeper part of the channel? It's a general alignment, but most likely the optimal one.

And the cut-and cover distruption was?

Note that South of King Ed is still half the entire line.

Why is elevated on the median of Lougheed acceptable, but not on Cambie?


OK, this is talking about 2 different things.

I was partially playing devil's advocate as well.

When I talk about the 'mid-harbour' connector, I'm talking about the 'EverBlue' Line in .

The issue with Purple for Canada Line riders is that it's a pretty big detour, and there's not much outside the densification area immediately around Phibbs- and definitely nothing east of Phibbs. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/r...cel-basedLandUseDesignationMapPoster.pdf

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's less about those stations and more about a circle connection to the Canada and Expo at the same time; with two near-empty stations, transfers can skip the CBD altogether and free up space in the "triangle."

Besides, I don't think we want to close down Burrard Station for another two years.

What we really need is some sort of underground walkway to connect Vancouver City Center and Granville if you want to cut congestion on Waterfront. Or the Waterfront Transit hub plan. But the former is probably a better immediate idea.

Plus, Millennium Line extension.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Exactly... or just downtown. If someone's in Surrey and say they're going downtown... they're not going to Surrey Central. I'm trying to think of any region that uses that. I think you have to get out to Abbotsford before "downtown" means "Abbotsford"

A "van" is a home that a guy lives in down by the river. A "downtown van" is a van that the who lives by the river that was towed to a parking garage... downtown.

Trying to think what I'd say...

I live...
"in Newton"
"in Whalley (or recently Surrey Central ?)"
"in Brentwood"
"near The Quay (New West)"
"in Metrotown"
"in Lonsdale"
"in Park Royal"
"in Ambleside"
"in Kits"
"downtown"

Actually... New West sounds right for New Westminster... but Londoners don't say "I am going to see Big Ben in 'West' they say in Westminster"

Maybe Langley? Do they call it Willowbrook? Or Langley Centre? or downtown?

I'm not sure what Richmond people call their downtown... "Richmond Centre?"

I think Squamish is sufficiently far away. "Downtown" means "Downtown Squamish"

Now I kind of want to do a language study... actually, I'm also curious if the "Broadway Corridor" is going to get its own identity. It spans a few neighbourhoods. Is it downtown South? South False Creek?

I know, it's just nomenclature... but interesting.

As a resident of Langley, Langley City is just called 'downtown Langley'.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That means the only route from Squamish/Whistler/Prince George to downtown is the IWMB. Probably not going to happen.

That's not an inconvenience to that many people.

The only other issue is that 99 would need to be rerouted across Hastings to the 2nd Narrows.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

And the cut-and cover distruption was?

Note that South of King Ed is still half the entire line.

Why is elevated on the median of Lougheed acceptable, but not on Cambie?

---

OK, this is talking about 2 different things.

I was partially playing devil's advocate as well.

When I talk about the 'mid-harbour' connector, I'm talking about the 'EverBlue' Line in (image removed for brevity).

The issue with Purple for Canada Line riders is that it's a pretty big detour, and there's not much outside the densification area immediately around Phibbs- and definitely nothing east of Phibbs. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/r...cel-basedLandUseDesignationMapPoster.pdf

The cut and cover was "only" a year or two; knocking down buildings is permanent, as is having a guideway right beside one side of the street - that's why elevated on Broadway got shot down. As for south of King Ed, that's when Cambie turns into a "Historic Boulevard" that's literally unable to be altered except by maintaining it.

Even @waves has concluded that Everblue is far-fetched. Like it or not, a direct crossing appears to be off the table.
Purple's not that bad. Development may be limited, but it's good for mobility in the region: increased access to Cap U, Park + Tilford and Deep Cove (Maplewood's still iffy), and now all the Phibbs buses don't have to cross the IWMB.

Originally Posted by fredinno

That's not an inconvenience to that many people.

The only other issue is that 99 would need to be rerouted across Hastings to the 2nd Narrows.

Closing Highway 7 wouldn't seem particularly inconvenient either, but then November happened; it's probably not a good idea to go around deactivating major parts of BC's inter-provincial road network. What if we get (yet another) suicide watch on the Second Narrows, or an accident, or maintenance problem, protest, or anything else? Shutting down the Second Narrows for any reason would cut off North Shore drivers from the rest of the city.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by fredinno

What we really need is some sort of underground walkway to connect Vancouver City Center and Granville if you want to cut congestion on Waterfront. Or the Waterfront Transit hub plan. But the former is probably a better immediate idea.

That's my concourse suggestion:


https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+Geor...582ab0ac!8m2!3d49.2857341!4d-123.1231553

[Migrant_Coconut]

Alas, I highly doubt we'd be able to close either Granville or Georgia without another lockdown.

[twoNeurons]

So.. I've been looking enviously at Montreal's REM program: https://rem.info/en/stations/anse-a-lorme#map

Although it shares a lot of similarity with our SkyTrain (80m platforms, elevated or at-grade outside of downtown, fully-automated) there are some interesting things I picked up which makes me rethink how we build the network in Vancouver.

First things first, Montreal's REM is costing $7billion dollars, but it's adding 67km of track and 26 stations.



It's ~34 km from the Anse-a-l'Orme station to Central station in Montreal, but that takes only 34 minutes. What is striking is that there are only 12 stations along that route. Some of the station spacing is 5,7, or 9km apart in one area!! Although I don't know why they aren't adding station on the branch to the airport and the main branch west, to be honest.

Anyhow... SkyTrain from King George to Burrard clocks in at around 37 minutes, but travels about 28km and hits 18 stations.

Which brings us to the Langley Extension and the North Short Extension:



I know these are different than Montreal... which has the advantage of travelling along an existing rail ROW for much of its length, but it does make you think that the 4.5km gap between 166 and 184 really isn't that long. In fact, I wonder if we're adding too MANY stations. Could 190 and 184 be combined into a 186 station? How about 160th and 166th stations?

I wonder how much we'd save by either combining these stations or making one of them a "future" station like Richmond did... and then have a developer pony up the cash to build it as either density or commercial ventures are sure to follow.


Additionally, this also makes me think that extensions to the Canada Line to Steveston aren't even that far fetched. There's already a rail corridor ROW after all.

I'm not saying what works for Montreal works for Vancouver, but it's interesting nonetheless that Montreal's started with local subways and moved to the Vancouver Express line model... while Vancouver started with an Express line model and now adding more stations.

Of course, we'll see WHAT gets built on the Surrey Line and the North Shore Line for that matter and I DO think we've struck a pretty good balance given the disadvantages we have (no good underused rail corridors)... but hey, this is the fantasy thread.

This map makes me see how similar it is to the Expo Line. Mostly elevated or surface level... following a rail ROW. But much larger station spacing outside of the core.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Best guess, TransLink is striking a balance between cost-efficiency and politics: they need to schmooze over the businesses and leftover streetcar fanboys who want closer stop spacing.

It's also worth noting that 160th, 166th, 184th and 190th all extend most of the way N-S; 164th and 186th do not.

[officedweller]

Presumably those arterial streets have bus routes.
Transit-oriented development will also come sooner rather than later with a built station, versus a future station (especially deep in the 'burbs where condo pricing may not support DCLs for a station).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

So.. I've been looking enviously at Montreal's REM program:

Although it shares a lot of similarity with our SkyTrain (80m platforms, elevated or at-grade outside of downtown, fully-automated) there are some interesting things I picked up which makes me rethink how we build the network in Vancouver.

First things first, Montreal's REM is costing $7billion dollars, but it's adding 67km of track and 26 stations.

It's ~34 km from the Anse-a-l'Orme station to Central station in Montreal, but that takes only 34 minutes. What is striking is that there are only 12 stations along that route. Some of the station spacing is 5,7, or 9km apart in one area!! Although I don't know why they aren't adding station on the branch to the airport and the main branch west, to be honest.

Anyhow... SkyTrain from King George to Burrard clocks in at around 37 minutes, but travels about 28km and hits 18 stations.

Which brings us to the Langley Extension and the North Short Extension:

I know these are different than Montreal... which has the advantage of travelling along an existing rail ROW for much of its length, but it does make you think that the 4.5km gap between 166 and 184 really isn't that long. In fact, I wonder if we're adding too MANY stations. Could 190 and 184 be combined into a 186 station? How about 160th and 166th stations?

I wonder how much we'd save by either combining these stations or making one of them a "future" station like Richmond did... and then have a developer pony up the cash to build it as either density or commercial ventures are sure to follow.

Additionally, this also makes me think that extensions to the Canada Line to Steveston aren't even that far fetched. There's already a rail corridor ROW after all.

I'm not saying what works for Montreal works for Vancouver, but it's interesting nonetheless that Montreal's started with local subways and moved to the Vancouver Express line model... while Vancouver started with an Express line model and now adding more stations.

Of course, we'll see WHAT gets built on the Surrey Line and the North Shore Line for that matter and I DO think we've struck a pretty good balance given the disadvantages we have (no good underused rail corridors)... but hey, this is the fantasy thread.

This map makes me see how similar it is to the Expo Line. Mostly elevated or surface level... following a rail ROW. But much larger station spacing outside of the core.

The Langley Skytrain has a station at every arterial intersection, where the areas designated for TOD development are, and where the buses go on. They make logical sense.

The only station that doesn't make sense from that model is 140, but Jim Patterson Outpatient is there, so...

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The cut and cover was "only" a year or two; knocking down buildings is permanent, as is having a guideway right beside one side of the street - that's why elevated on Broadway got shot down. As for south of King Ed, that's when Cambie turns into a "Historic Boulevard" that's literally unable to be altered except by maintaining it.

Even @waves has concluded that Everblue is far-fetched. Like it or not, a direct crossing appears to be off the table.
Purple's not that bad. Development may be limited, but it's good for mobility in the region: increased access to Cap U, Park + Tilford and Deep Cove (Maplewood's still iffy), and now all the Phibbs buses don't have to cross the IWMB.



Closing Highway 7 wouldn't seem particularly inconvenient either, but then November happened; it's probably not a good idea to go around deactivating major parts of BC's inter-provincial road network. What if we get (yet another) suicide watch on the Second Narrows, or an accident, or maintenance problem, protest, or anything else? Shutting down the Second Narrows for any reason would cut off North Shore drivers from the rest of the city.

The guideway on Lougheed isn't that bad. Though I guess others may disagree.

Which was stupid. There are other arterials in Vancouver with the same design. Vancouver shot itself in the foot here and made everyone else suffer the consequences.
And in any case, the Bombardier proposal had a trench beyond 49th St.

The question is whether it's worth it. Note that IWMB is likely to be upgraded in the future. If you had HOV bus lanes from Lougheed to Rupert (via Grandview) to Hastings to Phibbs, a lot of the issues that a North Shore Skytrain would solve would be solved, at least in part (rapid connection from East of Renfrew to North Shore.)

Though TBF, as long as the NDP is in charge, we're not going to see anything like that, so...

Direct is still on their list (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-transport-2050-draft-plan-transit-expansion).
Plus, if the North Shore wants its Skytrain connection anytime soon, neither the Gold Line or the Purple Line work- they're way too long and are a 2-3 phase project to get to Lonsdale. Maybe 3a (which could connect to a Hastings Line) is the only other option that's viable in that case (maybe a bit more to the east so it exits at Norgate, where it can better connect to both Lonsdale and Norgate/Capilano Mall and can replace the Seabus.

3a roughly uses the route where the proposal for the DT Freeway crossing went, so it's definitely feasible. Would be somewhat poetic as well.

The only issue is that it wouldn't provide much relief function for Expo (it's a longer and more inconvenient route to go Willingdon-Hastings-3a instead of Expo-3a.)


Hwy 7 is more well-used for trucks than Lions' Gate. Plus, you could open up Lions Gate for truck traffic in an emergency.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The guideway on Lougheed isn't that bad. Though I guess others may disagree.

Which was stupid. There are other arterials in Vancouver with the same design. Vancouver shot itself in the foot here and made everyone else suffer the consequences.
And in any case, the Bombardier proposal had a trench beyond 49th St.

The question is whether it's worth it. Note that IWMB is likely to be upgraded in the future. If you had HOV bus lanes from Lougheed to Rupert (via Grandview) to Hastings to Phibbs, a lot of the issues that a North Shore Skytrain would solve would be solved, at least in part (rapid connection from East of Renfrew to North Shore.)

Though TBF, as long as the NDP is in charge, we're not going to see anything like that, so...

Because Lougheed, Fraser et al are wider and the buildings are set back from the road. Any kind of alignment on a "narrow" arterial like Hastings is going to be right up beside somebody's third-floor window.

More like Vancouver just wanted it built, period; as @redheads observed in the general transit thread, RAV was vetoed twice until Victoria leaned on the mayors, and then it only passed by one vote. WRT Bombardier, a trench would've been a bad idea all around.

The IWMB already got its upgrade (the pedestrian walkways are a retrofit), so new lanes would require a completely new bridge. And the point of rapid transit is to stop local buses like the 28 or 130 from needing to do regional hauls in the first place.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Direct is still on their list (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-transport-2050-draft-plan-transit-expansion).
Plus, if the North Shore wants its Skytrain connection anytime soon, neither the Gold Line or the Purple Line work- they're way too long and are a 2-3 phase project to get to Lonsdale. Maybe 3a (which could connect to a Hastings Line) is the only other option that's viable in that case (maybe a bit more to the east so it exits at Norgate, where it can better connect to both Lonsdale and Norgate/Capilano Mall and can replace the Seabus.

3a roughly uses the route where the proposal for the DT Freeway crossing went, so it's definitely feasible. Would be somewhat poetic as well.

The only issue is that it wouldn't provide much relief function for Expo (it's a longer and more inconvenient route to go Willingdon-Hastings-3a instead of Expo-3a.)


Hwy 7 is more well-used for trucks than Lions' Gate. Plus, you could open up Lions Gate for truck traffic in an emergency.

Yes, it's on the list, just like how Buy More Buses was one of the alternatives for Broadway. Sometimes choices are there just to highlight the tradeoffs - just because Lonsdale Direct and Norgate are shorter doesn't mean they're cheaper or better or easier to implement. I can think of various reasons against those too.
Sure, it's a wait, but so were Broadway and Langley. Wasn't the lesson from the Canada Line "do it once, do it right?"

Exactly how do you open a transit-exclusive bridge to just trucks for a limited time? And what are the drivers stranded on the wrong side supposed to do?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Additionally, this also makes me think that extensions to the Canada Line to Steveston aren't even that far fetched. There's already a rail corridor ROW after all.

I agree and I don't think that Canada Line extensions further into Richmond should be off the table. But realistically...

- The single tracking in Richmond shot itself in the foot BIG time. Double tracking it will be a huge pain in the ass since development has spurred since the development of the line. This may mean that double tracking it will have to encroach more onto No.3 but that's based on my own speculation; someone can correct me here.

- If the region were to double track it in Richmond then they need to reconfigure the Richmond-Brighouse station which will be a mess to expand. The good news here is that if Translink is able to shut down Granville and Burrard station on the Expo line for a couple of years then there is no reason why we can't shut down Richmond-Brighouse for an extended period of time either.

No matter how much political will there is to extend the Canada line further into Richmond, Richmond will have to literally pay for the mistakes of the past.

I can see Richmond considering a new at-grade LRT system in their city as opposed to fixing the single tracking of the Canada line. Luckily the operating expenses of a new LRT system would likely deter Richmond from investing in it as it might make more sense to just fix and extend the Canada line.

[waves]

Originally Posted by scryer

I agree and I don't think that Canada Line extensions further into Richmond should be off the table. But realistically...

- The single tracking in Richmond shot itself in the foot BIG time. Double tracking it will be a huge pain in the ass since development has spurred since the development of the line. This may mean that double tracking it will have to encroach more onto No.3 but that's based on my own speculation; someone can correct me here.

- If the region were to double track it in Richmond then they need to reconfigure the Richmond-Brighouse station which will be a mess to expand. The good news here is that if Translink is able to shut down Granville and Burrard station on the Expo line for a couple of years then there is no reason why we can't shut down Richmond-Brighouse for an extended period of time either.

No matter how much political will there is to extend the Canada line further into Richmond, Richmond will have to literally pay for the mistakes of the past.

It's been a while but, 4 years ago, I made this post with this concept station where you keep the existing station building for northbound traffic and simply build a new southbound platform beside it:


https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7956256&postcount=528

I think it was eventually mentioned that the columns are slightly smaller than the normal double track columns north of Lansdowne, however, one idea was that you could rebuild that section re-using most of the existing columns with Steel girders so as to save on weight but fit two tracks.

[teriyaki]

One downside I see with that proposal is that passengers that want to switch from one side of the platform to the other, would have to go down to street level and exit the station. Cross a busy No.3 road intersection, and then go back into the fare-paid zone.

[officedweller]

Another option would just be to keep the single track section, but short-turn a portion of the trains at Lansdowne, so the number of trains running through the single track section (and on to Steveston on new double track south of Brighouse) is reduced.
Buses could be redistributed to Lansdowne and other statons further south along the extended line, as the extension probably eliminates the need for a single bus hub.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by teriyaki

One downside I see with that proposal is that passengers that want to switch from one side of the platform to the other, would have to go down to street level and exit the station. Cross a busy No.3 road intersection, and then go back into the fare-paid zone.

That was my initial concern, but there's maybe two cases where it'd be a problem: if a passenger misses a stop and gets off at Brighouse, or if they mix up the platform directions. Nothing a bunch of signs won't fix for the latter.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because Lougheed, Fraser et al are wider and the buildings are set back from the road. Any kind of alignment on a "narrow" arterial like Hastings is going to be right up beside somebody's third-floor window.

More like Vancouver just wanted it built, period; as @redheads observed in the general transit thread, RAV was vetoed twice until Victoria leaned on the mayors, and then it only passed by one vote. WRT Bombardier, a trench would've been a bad idea all around.

The IWMB already got its upgrade (the pedestrian walkways are a retrofit), so new lanes would require a completely new bridge. And the point of rapid transit is to stop local buses like the 28 or 130 from needing to do regional hauls in the first place.



Yes, it's on the list, just like how Buy More Buses was one of the alternatives for Broadway. Sometimes choices are there just to highlight the tradeoffs - just because Lonsdale Direct and Norgate are shorter doesn't mean they're cheaper or better or easier to implement. I can think of various reasons against those too.
Sure, it's a wait, but so were Broadway and Langley. Wasn't the lesson from the Canada Line "do it once, do it right?"

Exactly how do you open a transit-exclusive bridge to just trucks for a limited time? And what are the drivers stranded on the wrong side supposed to do?

Hence why they are on the middle of the road in Brentwood (this is also where LRT/BRT stations are recommended to be.)

Hastings and Cambie are both 3 lanes wide, and Skytrain guideways are a bit more than 2 lanes wide, so you have 2 lanes and a sidewalk of space. There are plenty of buildings in eg. Brentwood and Richmond built after the Skytrain was put in with a narrower spacing, some even being right next to the guideway.

I can think of a few reasons elevated was left off the table for Broadway (like connecting to the Millennium Line), but space isn't one of them.


Well, Translink isn't giving up on buses on the freeways. Their proposed 2050 map has express buses on every freeway except the section of Hwy 1 between Lougheed and Phibbs.

We also need both freeways and rapid transit in the North Shore. The North Shore should have been on the list of the Liberals' post-Gateway highway expansion plans.

Right, except there's also no favoured proposal, except the favoured proposal brought forth by NS mayors. Which is fine, until you remember Richmond also favoured a deep-bore tunnel for the Massey Crossing- which was thrown out pretty dang quickly for being impractical.

Curious, so let's hear the counterarguments to Norgate...

The Transport 2050 plan also clearly shows 3 potential routes (Mid-Harbour, 1st Narrows, 2nd Narrows) instead on 1 preferred assumed route (like Broadway did).


Except you're waiting longer for an inferior route that helps fewer people (at least from the NS perspective). A direct connection serves everyone in the region (because Expo- ignoring potential congestion issues- you can build the Purple Line later to divert some commuters to the Hastings-3a or Direct when needed).
2nd Narrows means DT and Richmond commuters have to take a massive detour, cutting out almost half of the commuters.

You...tell truck drivers they can use the First Narrows again? They're not going to skirt by the law- it's normal drivers you need to worry about.
Which about the only real option to stop would be cameras and fines.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Hence why they are on the middle of the road in Brentwood (this is also where LRT/BRT stations are recommended to be.)

Hastings and Cambie are both 3 lanes wide, and Skytrain guideways are a bit more than 2 lanes wide, so you have 2 lanes and a sidewalk of space. There are plenty of buildings in eg. Brentwood and Richmond built after the Skytrain was put in with a narrower spacing, some even being right next to the guideway.

I can think of a few reasons elevated was left off the table for Broadway (like connecting to the Millennium Line), but space isn't one of them.

The provincial government feels differently about Broadway (page 27).

It's important to remember that lanes aren't a universal measurement; six lanes at Brentwood is 20m of road plus 14m of setback... but six lanes on Hastings is 20m combined. Richmond doesn't really care as much about setbacks, but then again, it's Richmond.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, Translink isn't giving up on buses on the freeways. Their proposed 2050 map has express buses on every freeway except the section of Hwy 1 between Lougheed and Phibbs.

We also need both freeways and rapid transit in the North Shore. The North Shore should have been on the list of the Liberals' post-Gateway highway expansion plans.

Right, except there's also no favoured proposal, except the favoured proposal brought forth by NS mayors. Which is fine, until you remember Richmond also favoured a deep-bore tunnel for the Massey Crossing- which was thrown out pretty dang quickly for being impractical.

Curious, so let's hear the counterarguments to Norgate...

The Transport 2050 plan also clearly shows 3 potential routes (Mid-Harbour, 1st Narrows, 2nd Narrows) instead on 1 preferred assumed route (like Broadway did).

On the freeways. When they're not stuck at the Phibbs on-ramp, the 28 and 130 spend almost all their time on Hastings, Boundary and Willingdon; bus lanes on the IWMB don't solve them being local routes doing long-distance commuting. The next step, of course, is to add a RapidBus, but that just kicks the can down the road. Joyce/Metrotown to Hastings needs to be a train corridor by 2050... and if you've gone that far, you might as well go to Phibbs and beyond.

Transport 2050 plan's Option A and B use the Gold Line, which itself is a continuation of plans that've been gathering dust since Expo '86. Dunno about you, but that screams "favoured" to me.
Broadway showed four technologies, one of them being a branching alignment from Olympic Village. It's clear that only one was ever a serious consideration - everything else was just the math to demonstrate how they got there.

Because 21A/Norgate splits off from the Expo instead of extending it, which halves frequency along both new branches (Waterfront and North Shore). It doesn't connect to Park Royal without yet another branch. And Welch Street isn't any more developer-friendly than Phibbs. That plus the commuter patterns makes it a "quick and dirty" option.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Except you're waiting longer for an inferior route that helps fewer people (at least from the NS perspective). A direct connection serves everyone in the region (because Expo- ignoring potential congestion issues- you can build the Purple Line later to divert some commuters to the Hastings-3a or Direct when needed).
2nd Narrows means DT and Richmond commuters have to take a massive detour, cutting out almost half of the commuters.

You...tell truck drivers they can use the First Narrows again? They're not going to skirt by the law- it's normal drivers you need to worry about.
Which about the only real option to stop would be cameras and fines.

Commuter patterns say otherwise. 45% of North Shore locals commute within the North Shore, so they all get the same level of coverage from a full R2 replacement regardless of which crossing.
Another 7-8% travel to Burnaby or further into the 'burbs, and 32% head to Vancouver via the First and Second Narrows and the SeaBus. Seeing as both Narrows draw their catchments from the CoV and all over the NS, it's safe to say that a Hastings route (itself in high demand) would hardly be inferior, nor lower-volume.

My point exactly - if truckers can use the bridge, there's not much anybody can do to stop general traffic from using it too.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'll just leave the numbers here:

1st Narrows Buses
#240 - 10,500 riders/day (Central Lonsdale to downtown)
#241 - 1,460 riders/day
#242 - 190 riders/day
#246 - 4,500 riders/day (upper North Van to downtown)
#247 - 360 riders/day
#250 - 11,180 riders/day (Horseshoe Bay to downtown)
#253 - 1,730 riders/day
#254 - 970 riders/day
#257 - 4,840 riders/day (Horseshoe Bay to downtown via TCH)
#258 - 180 riders/day

2nd Narrows Buses
#028 - 6,920 riders/day (Phibbs to Joyce)
#130 - 14,010 riders/day (Phibbs to Metrotown)
#209 - 660 riders/day
#210 - 4,160 riders/day (Lynn Valley to downtown via Phibbs)
#211 - 2,540 riders/day (Deep Cove to downtown via Phibbs)
#214 - 640 riders/day

Source: 2019 TSPR

So that's an existing ridership base of 28,930 for a Phibbs crossing (not counting Hastings ridership, which'd push it to over 50k), 17,010 for Norgate, and 35,910 for Park Royal.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The provincial government feels differently about Broadway (page 27).

The biggest issues brought up seem to be
1. Potentially unsightly.
2. Lower development potential
3. Fewer lanes and more difficulty to move around.
4. The tunnel portal

1. Is mitigated by the existence of the Skytrain itself.
2. Can be mitigated by going taller, and is probably overblown, considering how close buildings on Canada and the Millennium @ Burnaby are being built to the Skytrain.
3. Is the big one, but they kind of lost that argument when they narrowed the road lanes anyways for wider sidewalks (which weren't even a necessity due to congestion.)
4. Is the only really legitimate one here.

I think that if we were to redo this calculus today, elevated would be more seriously considered. Because apparently shutting down parking lanes is no longer a big deal to COV.

It's important to remember that lanes aren't a universal measurement; six lanes at Brentwood is 20m of road plus 14m of setback... but six lanes on Hastings is 20m combined. Richmond doesn't really care as much about setbacks, but then again, it's Richmond.

And Burnaby?

The report you linked is actually more generous than I am, I calculated approx. 19m on Broadway, with 7m for the tracks. The report thinks they can get down to 5m for the tracks.

Transport 2050 plan's Option A and B use the Gold Line, which itself is a continuation of plans that've been gathering dust since Expo '86. Dunno about you, but that screams "favoured" to me.
Broadway showed four technologies, one of them being a branching alignment from Olympic Village. It's clear that only one was ever a serious consideration - everything else was just the math to demonstrate how they got there.

Which ones?

The original 1970s plans recommended to Vancouver for its rail network looks like this.

Also, just because something has been 'favored' for a while, it doesn't mean that's what's going to be done. Evergreen used to be preferred as LRT. Canada was supposed to go on Arbutus. Millennium Phase 1 was created out of paper cloth by the NDP wanting a cheap Skytrain Line, with the original proposal for the 2nd Skytrain line being completely different:
(https://www.liquisearch.com/millennium_line/history)

When the Expo Line opened in 1985, an extension to Lougheed Mall in east Burnaby was proposed. The most likely junction point for the spur to Lougheed Mall would have been from Royal Oak Station, up Edmonds Street to Lougheed Mall, although early SkyTrain route maps also suggested an extension northeast from New Westminster. Neither plan was ever realized

Because 21A/Norgate splits off from the Expo instead of extending it, which halves frequency along both new branches (Waterfront and North Shore). It doesn't connect to Park Royal without yet another branch. And Welch Street isn't any more developer-friendly than Phibbs. That plus the commuter patterns makes it a "quick and dirty" option.

Who said it was a branch of the Expo Line? I was thinking it would be an extension of Hastings.

Something like
The 1st phase would be the NS crossing, with future phases on Hastings and Willingdon, as well as a future line on Marine. A new bus loop would be built around Capilano Mall.

Welch? Not W 1st and Marine and the NS Auto Mall and Capilano Mall? (Wait, that was my fault. Oops. That's not Norgate.)

None of the options connect directly to an actual destination (not a bus loop used to transfer to other buses) except the direct Lonsdale-Waterfront option and the First Narrows Option.

Commuter patterns say otherwise. 45% of North Shore locals commute within the North Shore, so they all get the same level of coverage from a full R2 replacement regardless of which crossing.
Another 7-8% travel to Burnaby or further into the 'burbs, and 32% head to Vancouver via the First and Second Narrows and the SeaBus. Seeing as both Narrows draw their catchments from the CoV and all over the NS, it's safe to say that a Hastings route (itself in high demand) would hardly be inferior, nor lower-volume.

2nd Narrows is more well-used/has a larger catchment because it connects to Hwy 1. That's it. If Highway 1 was built through the proposed 3rd Crossing, the 3rd Crossing would have a larger catchment area than 2nd Narrows.

Also, why are we considering inter-NS transport for a NS crossing location? I think both of us agree on the best corridors inside the NS (Marine and Lonsdale Ave).

In fact, the very report you're citing disagrees with you:
http://www.instpp.ca/uploads/1/2/1/6/121600566/instpp-full-report.pdf

Higher levels of rapid transit were examined
for two main corridors:
1) Rapid transit crossing Burrard Inlet in the vicinity of Second Narrows to connect the
North Shore with SkyTrain in east Vancouver:
Our analysis showed that ridership would be low on a rapid transit line connecting
to the area south and east of the Second Narrows Bridge because of the dispersed
development it would serve.
2) Rapid transit crossing Burrard Inlet in the vicinity of the SeaBus route to connect
Lonsdale City Centre with SkyTrain in downtown Vancouver:
Our initial review indicated this connection would provide more transportation choice
and attract more transit ridership.

My point exactly - if truckers can use the bridge, there's not much anybody can do to stop general traffic from using it too.

That's every bus lane though... It's not a unique issue, and actually easier to solve on Lions Gate by virtue of only having a few exits/entrances.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The biggest issues brought up seem to be
1. Potentially unsightly.
2. Lower development potential
3. Fewer lanes and more difficulty to move around.
4. The tunnel portal

1. Is mitigated by the existence of the Skytrain itself.
2. Can be mitigated by going taller, and is probably overblown, considering how close buildings on Canada and the Millennium @ Burnaby are being built to the Skytrain.
3. Is the big one, but they kind of lost that argument when they narrowed the road lanes anyways for wider sidewalks (which weren't even a necessity due to congestion.)
4. Is the only really legitimate one here.

I think that if we were to redo this calculus today, elevated would be more seriously considered. Because apparently shutting down parking lanes is no longer a big deal to COV.


And Burnaby?

The report you linked is actually more generous than I am, I calculated approx. 19m on Broadway, with 7m for the tracks. The report thinks they can get down to 5m for the tracks.

You're overlooking 7.4.2 and 7.4.3: elevated stations and impacts to the street and businesses. A 5-7m guideway on a ~20m wide street blocks out most of the sun for most of the day, and a 20m wide station means you need to level both sides of the block and create an equivalent setback for the redevelopment. Cambie/Lougheed get away with it because they're wider, and the businesses aren't streetfronts that go up to the property line; it's not going to end well if you try and pitch that to Sunset or Burnaby Heights.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Which ones?

The original 1970s plans recommended to Vancouver for its rail network looks like this.

Also, just because something has been 'favored' for a while, it doesn't mean that's what's going to be done. Evergreen used to be preferred as LRT. Canada was supposed to go on Arbutus. Millennium Phase 1 was created out of paper cloth by the NDP wanting a cheap Skytrain Line, with the original proposal for the 2nd Skytrain line being completely different:
(https://www.liquisearch.com/millennium_line/history)

Who said it was a branch of the Expo Line? I was thinking it would be an extension of Hastings.

Something like (image)
The 1st phase would be the NS crossing, with future phases on Hastings and Willingdon, as well as a future line on Marine. A new bus loop would be built around Capilano Mall.

Welch? Not W 1st and Marine and the NS Auto Mall and Capilano Mall? (Wait, that was my fault. Oops. That's not Norgate.)

None of the options connect directly to an actual destination (not a bus loop used to transfer to other buses) except the direct Lonsdale-Waterfront option and the First Narrows Option.

This one, not the mission statement.

Except there's no possible way to politicize or water down a North Shore crossing - both ends of the R2 are solid pro-transit Dipper territory.

TransLink said it. An independent line isn't on the table at the moment, if ever; all current options utilize existing Expo depots and OMCs. In the case of First Narrows/Norgate, the line would branch off from Burrard and go to Central Lonsdale (replacing the 240), and Norgate would most likely have a station at Welch, then Pemberton, then Cap Mall. AFAIK the latter isn't much of a destination either.

Since we're not counting the Phibbs redevelopment, Second Narrows connects to Park & Tilford and Lonsdale Quay in every option.

Originally Posted by fredinno

2nd Narrows is more well-used/has a larger catchment because it connects to Hwy 1. That's it. If Highway 1 was built through the proposed 3rd Crossing, the 3rd Crossing would have a larger catchment area than 2nd Narrows.

Also, why are we considering inter-NS transport for a NS crossing location? I think both of us agree on the best corridors inside the NS (Marine and Lonsdale Ave).

In fact, the very report you're citing disagrees with you:
http://www.instpp.ca/uploads/1/2/1/6/121600566/instpp-full-report.pdf

That's every bus lane though... It's not a unique issue, and actually easier to solve on Lions Gate by virtue of only having a few exits/entrances.

And yet bus ridership - shown above - indicates that North Van passengers in general like both crossings equally. Pretty much the only reason to go via First Narrows and Park Royal instead of Second is West Van passengers.

Because you said that Second Narrows is an inferior route for NS commuters. It's not, so long as it goes all the way from Phibbs to PR... which Norgate definitely doesn't.
Methinks you misread part of my comment: that 32% of traffic headed to Vancouver is split between both Narrows.

Trucks aren't buses. Not only are you going to have a hard time turning a bus lane into a truck lane, you're going to have an equally hard time getting cars not to follow. Far as they're concerned, it means "general traffic is welcome."