Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed

[scottN]

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/false...ember-2019.pdf

This looks pretty bad for cyclists on the seaside bypass route, which presently runs along 2nd Avenue to Fir Street to 1st Avenue.

Crossing rail tracks perpendicularly is fine, but parallel running and shallow crossings like this are pretty dangerous, especially with the curves, switches, intersections, mixed traffic and turning cyclists all coinciding at the same place. Even running the bike route straight though on 2nd to pine would be pretty dangerous.

[scryer]

I feel like there is some good discussion going on about the possibilities of streetcars and the Arbutus Greenway LRT and I just wanted to revisit and invite more informed opinions on it. Basically I am just talking out of my ass and speculating without any educated knowledge .

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://www.via-architecture.com/por...ver-streetcar/



You're making an argument to not have the Artubus LRT/BRT built to begin with- though, TBF, Skytrain or Tram-Train there could be admittedly a good option, IF you can get the NIMBYs to agree to it somehow...

I think that I have repeated my opinion a few times on the idea of Street-Level LRT for Vancouver so I do apologize if I sound like a broken record. I almost feel like the idea of streetcars in Vancity should be a thread of its own.

So this the thing... With that map that I quoted I do honestly like the idea of streetcars (for lack of a better term) for the downtown peninsula and for the areas that it proposes the streetcar for. In fact I included this kind of surface LRT into a fantasy of my own. However I find that I have a hard time finding an argument for street-level LRT whereas it could just be replaced with more frequent trolley-buses .

In the context of this map, I would assume that everything within the downtown peninsula is all SLGI LRT except for some small bits like maybe by Waterfront station (?).

Point 1 - Capacity
For me, street-level and grade-integrated (SLGI) LRT is a way to address capacity. An LRT train should be able to carry significantly more people than a standard bus. Just doing basic google searches, the new Toronto LRT train can hold up to 181 passengers (standing) whereas an articulated bus can hold up to 98 people (standing)

So already we have our first counter argument against which is PPHPD where I think that it was mentioned on here that buses would out-do LRT for PPHPD? And the point of transit is to move as many people as efficiently as possible. Please someone correct me about the PPHPD.


Point 2 - Speed
Again, for me, SLGI LRT should address capacity and not speed. I know that SLGI LRT is not going to be faster than a bus and that is fine with me so long as we are all on the same page and understand that LRT is not a rapid transit solution (nightmares of the Surrey LRT come to mind here...).

Next counterpoint - why not spend the same amount of money on BRT? The only problem that I personally have with BRT is that I don't think that it has ever been executed well in Canada. Winnipeg's BRT is a disaster and the Rapid Bus program in Vancouver is just a bunch of money to paint some articulated buses with fancy signs. I think that BRT is totally feasible to implement but Canada has a pretty bad track record of doing BRT adequately which isn't a good enough reason to be against BRT but it is something that I do keep in mind.


Point 3 - Route Logistics
With SLGI LRT, the route of the tracks is extremely important since LRT collisions are insanely high. London just had its first fatal collision with LRT and Edmonton and Calgary each have plenty of fatalities of their own as well.

If we were going to go ahead with SLGI LRT in the downtown peninsula then I would personally like to see some grade separation at intersections that have a high collision potential.

My counterpoint against LRT is that if we need LRT grade-separated anyways for safety concerns then why not just build Skytrain?


Point 4 - More Bus Inventory
Trust and believe, once we see the Millennium extension to UBC, we are going to see some great things happening with bus routes across Metro Vancouver.

With an LRT system, it would free up even more inventory so that Translink is able to provide more frequent and better services to further out areas like South Surrey and Langley.


Point 5 - Land Values
There are studies to show that land value go up if LRT tracks are set. And then there are other studies and articles that show that the process of construction is so grueling that it drives away businesses.

Overall, I feel like LRT does make sense for downtown Vancouver and for the Arbutus greenway but it is incredibly hard to make a case for it. I think that it would all come down to the design of it for me. Thankfully we have Toronto to compare to when it comes to a successful streetcar system. And if Vancouver was to go ahead and build a streetcar system (like the one I quoted or the Arbutus Greenway) then I would also expect the system to expand like Toronto's has. I personally think that LRT can address capacity issues where we couldn't build Skytrain to like to the West End (sorry, but I don't think that a West End Skytrain station is ever going to happen) or through OV up to Senakw.

Sorry to give you guys such a wishy-washy reply. I am definitely in the grey-zone with LRT for downtown Vancouver.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Is that really possible? You say it is next to nigh impossible to have, but please just imagine for a moment that it were; could you apply it to that possible LRT Vancouver map?
I would love to see some renders of what it might be like!

In this modern day and age, anything is possible to engineer. We just need the funds, the right political climate, and a population wanting it (not gonna happen until the Boomers die off though - same with the view-cone thing). If i could, I would love to have Skytrain absolutely everywhere but the reality (in regards to the peninsula) is that people will want to bury the Skytrain doubling its expenses and people generally oppose elevated Skytrain. Let me speculate again on the feasibility on the two most likely LRT routes to be developed. Most of these are generalizations:

False Creek
- Transit oriented community

- Very Walk-able neighbourhood

- Skytrain Stations include OV and Main Street-Science World

- West 1st or West 2nd/West 6th avenue; and Quebec Street look like they could be good candidates for SLGI LRT routes.

- The connection to Waterfront station could be messy-ish, especially if the LRT has to go through Gastown. I know that it would be cool for historical purposes but I would rather have it behind Gastown (north) adjacent to the service road that is adjacent to all of the rail.

- The False Creek (specifically OV) community is under a lot of construction so construction fatigue might be a thing.

- Most of it would probably be integrated with traffic.

- Between the two streetcar lines, I can see this one being built first.

Arbutus Greenway
- The Greenway path itself is huge in length and it is pretty much the perfect size to accommodate LRT vehicles.

- The route here is mostly separated from traffic making it a lot more safer and dare I say, faster?

- Most walk-able and transit oriented neighbourhoods are located along Broadway or north of Broadway. And then there's Kerrisdale that would greatly densify.

- Goes through the heart of NIMBYville so they will oppose absolutely everything and anything. They will especially oppose Skytrain and will be more likely to accept LRT (which isn't a good excuse, but they haven't died off yet so nothing progressive can happen).

- On that note, these NIMBYs will probably shave 3 years off of their short remaining lives opposing anything and everything since Broadway will be a huge change for them. Even if we were to bring a streetcar system down the Arbutus Greenway pulled by horses, these NIMBYs will probably oppose these changes until their last dying breath.

^I honestly don't see streetcar/LRT making sense for Vancouver except for the Arbutus Corridor and False Creek.

There's no point building a streetcar that will just sit in mixed traffic and won't have signal priority except being a colossal waste of money. I also don't trust the planners here to do a proper job and implement those things.

I agree with both points which is why my opinion on LRT is literally on the fence pending the detailed design plans. I want it but it has to be done right.

I think that Arbutus Greenway and the False Creek routes (with the LRT going all the way to Waterfront, combining the red-dotted and the black solid lines in the diagram) are a perfect start for LRTs. But we shouldn't be shy from expanding the service where it makes sense, and IMO, it would make sense to expand it throughout the downtown peninsula as the buses already sit in traffic anyways.

I have also copied and carried over this discussion to the Arbutus Greenway Thread...

[logicbomb]

The COV are going to sell the entire spur from Burrard to W 1st Ave for high density development. Kills any False Creek connection unless an expensive tunnel is built.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

The COV are going to sell the entire spur from Burrard to W 1st Ave for high density development. Kills any False Creek connection unless an expensive tunnel is built.

No, they're planning to sell from West 5th to Pennyfarthing. That still leaves Fir Street, which sees a maximum of twelve cars at any given point in the day.

[Conrad Yablonski]

Codswallop-statements or beliefs that are untrue or make no sense

[jollyburger]

Not sure if any of this is new or not.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2018-472-release.pdf

Another one with more specifics. Most of the OMF options are in the False Creek Flats. 8 minute headways with 15 cars at peak times.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2019-401-release1.pdf

[scryer]

Some interesting finds that stood out to me from really reading the fine print and going through it with a fine-tooth comb:

With the single-track portion starting at West 8th Avenue, a switch could be placed roughly where the two future streetcar tracks are to cross over each other (a diamond crossing) in the full AGP streetcar build out. Thus, only the turnout and minimal track on either side would need to be replaced. This would also allow for the two streetcar tracks through the Delamont Park curve to be located in their ultimate locations.

Page 20

From what I gather it seems like the study would build out the Arbutus Station > Granville Island portion of the LRT before the Arbutus Greenway (AGP) route. I am open to the fact that I may be misunderstanding this .

A potential new pedestrian overpass connecting West 4th Avenue, under the Granville Bridge, to Lameys Mill Road

Plans to reimagine Lameys Mill Rd as a pedestrian-oriented, multi-modal road with widened sidewalks, and space for large street trees to maintain the green, park-like quality of this area. The difficult grade change between the existing rail corridor and Lameys Mill Road would be a challenge. There may be an opportunity to enhance the area with a mural on the retaining wall under Lameys Mill Road, visible to streetcar passengers.

Passing by the location of lost streams (approximately at Hemlock Court, Fountain Way Court, Spruce Street, Heather Street, Olympic Village Station, and Wylie Street) provides an opportunity to connect with natural and cultural heritage and local First Nations history by potentially exposing the stream or acknowledging its previous existence using signage or public realm improvements.

Enhancements to the Charleson Park interface with native plantings and improved pedestrian trail connections with consideration of incorporating active recreation amenities that complete the amenities in
the park, such as a bike pump track or dog agility course

A possible closure of Charleson since there are no residences adjacent, with buses rerouted onto West 6th Avenue

An integrated multi-modal transit station at Olympic Village stop with clear pedestrian and cycling connections to Charleson Park and the seawall

Connections to the Heather Street bikeway

Pages 24-25

Page 33 gets super interesting with exploring the idea of re-aligning Lorne, Industrial, and East 1st Avenue to build tracks to locations like Great Northern Way campus. I didn't quote this because there would be too much to quote.

I'm gonna read more on into it (I stopped at page 38 where they go over potential routes through the St. Paul's development ) another time since I have more time off these days (thank you, COVID). But the general impression that I am getting from picking through this with a fine-tooth comb is that this project possesses a lot of potential to extend LRT throughout multiple points of Vancouver beyond the scope of this initial project.

[whatnext]

The stretch of the Greenway between 7th and 10th is going to be closed for four years (!) for Millennium line extension construction.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/arbu...ruction-detour

[Aroundtheworld]

Those plans are so disappointing. It looks like went from having a segregated streetcar to having most of it be shared running. At that point, it's not even worth doing IMO.

At least the COV doesn't have any money to build it poorly at the moment.

[Migrant_Coconut]

According to the City, there's no room for two tracks on the Greenway between 6th and 16th - the plan is indeed to have the southbound track in mixed traffic on Arbutus itself. Our best shot is for TransLink to disregard that and go with a cut & cover solution.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

According to the City, there's no room for two tracks on the Greenway between 6th and 16th - the plan is indeed to have the southbound track in mixed traffic on Arbutus itself. Our best shot is for TransLink to disregard that and go with a cut & cover solution.

Too late since the arbutus statation mezzanine level for the millenium line will interfere with any kind of shallow tunnel under broadway.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

According to the City, there's no room for two tracks on the Greenway between 6th and 16th - the plan is indeed to have the southbound track in mixed traffic on Arbutus itself. Our best shot is for TransLink to disregard that and go with a cut & cover solution.

I get what you're saying about cut-and-cover but I honestly am not mad at all about the Arbutus Greenway mixing with traffic the way it does. The 2019 feasibility study has always had the Arbutus Greenway mixing with traffic at several points as an LRT solution... and honestly I'm not mad about it for a few reasons:

1. The technology used for the Arbutus greenway will never become the core spine of Metro Vancouver's transit system. Rather it will add another tier or level to it and I think that the feasibility study is really transparent about the realities of street-mixed LRTs.

2. The Arbutus Greenway has never really been touted as a rapid transit solution; rather it has been discussed as a capacity transit solution. I am quoting someone else but this kind of technology would actually function more as an arm or a leg, rather than a transit spine; like an auxiliary/deluxe commuter collector.

3. By introducing (and more importantly proving to people that mixed LRT is not the same as rapid transit) LRT into Vancouver's transit mix, we can also begin to extend it to start replacing bus lines where bus capacities are being maxed out; such as bus routes that will never be converted into Skytrain. This will allow Vancouver to be more open to developing a streetcar-like system on routes where it makes sense such as (IMO) replacing some of the circuitous downtown lines on the peninsula.

So no, it doesn't surprise me that this portion of the route would be mixed with traffic. In fact, I expected it with this specific project.

To end off with a disclaimer: we are going to have to wait-and-see what happens with commuter patterns after the Millennium line extension opens up... and perhaps we even need to wait and see how commuter patterns change after the line extends to UBC? At the moment, I just don't see a demand for a N-S connection along Arbutus... yet.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Perhaps. Yet this is the one place in Vancouver where a streetcar can actually be the B-Line Plus (TM) that Fitch and Condon are hoping for, and one that can also relieve the Canada Line. With that in mind, it makes sense that it touches the street as little as possible; I don't think making Arbutus a three-lane road is a solution to that.

Edit: As for street-running rail as replacement feeder service, I'm not seeing any bus line that needs a $2 billion replacement before Transport 2080 rolls around.

Originally Posted by scottN

Too late since the arbutus statation mezzanine level for the millenium line will interfere with any kind of shallow tunnel under broadway.

Note that I said nothing about a "shallow" tunnel... but yes, perhaps this idea belongs in the Fantasy thread.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Those plans are so disappointing. It looks like went from having a segregated streetcar to having most of it be shared running. At that point, it's not even worth doing IMO.

At least the COV doesn't have any money to build it poorly at the moment.

It's always interesting talking to a former engineer. The plans were always very unrealistic and there were literal plans drawn up that took no consideration to coding (required seismic setbacks beside the new Broadway Stn) and future development. Some renders showed a 15m ROW when the actual number was closer to 13.7; and would require additional property acquisition. The justification for a streetcar wasn't there anyways in our lifetime.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

It's always interesting talking to a former engineer. The plans were always very unrealistic and there were literal plans drawn up that took no consideration to coding (required seismic setbacks beside the new Broadway Stn) and future development. Some renders showed a 15m ROW when the actual number was closer to 13.7; and would require additional property acquisition. The justification for a streetcar wasn't there anyways in our lifetime.

Grade-level streetcars or LRT or whatever you want to call it in Vancouver is a solution looking for a problem that isn't already fully solved by other existing, cheaper or more effective solutions.

[wabooba]

I remember the sound of diesel locomotives pulling trains at night on that route in junior college. Now it has into sort of a greenway/bike route, and that's great! Yet ...

A tramway of some sort is inevitable in the long haul. The north-south link to The Arbutus subway station is too important not to build a feeder transit to it, and that stretches from the downtown join-up south to SW Marine.

What or which rolling stock can wait, but the engineering for this line, putting as much of it underground as much as possible is vital. Respect and maintenance of The pedestrian realm are paramount. A toughie.


Vancouver now has transit-building savvy and experience, plus enough environmental awareness, to get it done right with the right rolling stock and the necessary engineering expertise to achieve that. It may take a while, given the necessary time and money, both to feed in and out of the Arbutus subway terminal, and into the CBD as well as linking with
the existing south False Creek extant route joining westward and central city branches. It is bigger than most people think.
This requires getting it right. We can do it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Careful, too many tunnels and we might as well build a SkyTrain. The stretch from 16th to Marpole (not counting Kerrisdale) is isolated enough from the road that for all intents and purposes, it practically is grade-separated... the problem is 16th to Science World and planners at City Hall who've drunk too much New Urbanism.

[logan5]

The Arbutus Corridor isn't a part of Translink's 2050 plan, but this corridor is by far the most rapid transit ready. You could very cheaply build a grade A BRT line right into downtown by utilizing the Granville Street Bridge as the last stretch. The route would deal with so few intersections (until you hit 16th Ave, but then you block those minor sidestreets off) that it would be nearly as fast as Skytrain (with similar station spacing), but at a small fraction of the cost. Too bad to see that golden opportunity wasted.

[wabooba]

Originally Posted by logan5

The Arbutus Corridor isn't a part of Translink's 2050 plan, but this corridor is by far the most rapid transit ready. You could very cheaply build a grade A BRT line right into downtown by utilizing the Granville Street Bridge as the last stretch. The route would deal with so few intersections (until you hit 16th Ave, but then you block those minor sidestreets off) that it would be nearly as fast as Skytrain (with similar station spacing), but at a small fraction of the cost. Too bad to see that golden opportunity wasted.

I think your idea of starting with articulated (and hopefully frequent) BRT is great. The only major difference for me is that I would do some of it underground, like Geary in SF, even smaller, at major intersections.
But tunnels are $expensive, and people here don't seem to like them, for some reason. Still, beginning with good BRT is great and would evolve as necessary.