Transit Fantasies

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

-snip-

Those are changes to the grade; the alignment is pretty much set in stone as long as TransLink is still hell-bent on using the Expo to cross the North Shore three decades after the initial plans, in which case the law of parsimony still favours Burrard, Hastings or a completely new Willingdon line. We can dream of a line down Hastings across the First Narrows, ditto an elevated line along the UBC golf course, but it's evident that neither's under serious consideration at any time between now and 2030.

Still a pretty bad deal for the North Shore, especially because a major part of the demand is North Van < - > West Van. Better over the long term to run Phibbs to Dunderave, then later add a separate West Side line to Park Royal or Cap Mall.

Again, that better frequency on Norgate/Park Royal is still going to be hindered by the longer distance. Even with a 2.5-5 minute headway (which won't likely happen, see above) instead of 5-10, you only save ~4 minutes on average over the SeaBus. Those are LRT-level savings, not RRT.

Good thing both Purple and the M-Line would both get 2.5-5 minute headways at Brentwood due to not having to share, so transfers aren't a problem at all.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Those are changes to the grade; the alignment is pretty much set in stone as long as TransLink is still hell-bent on using the Expo to cross the North Shore three decades after the initial plans, in which case the law of parsimony still favours Burrard, Hastings or a completely new Willingdon line. We can dream of a line down Hastings across the First Narrows, ditto an elevated line along the UBC golf course, but it's evident that neither's under serious consideration at any time between now and 2030.

Still a pretty bad deal for the North Shore, especially because a major part of the demand is North Van < - > West Van. Better over the long term to run Phibbs to Dunderave, then later add a separate West Side line to Park Royal or Cap Mall.

Again, that better frequency on Norgate/Park Royal is still going to be hindered by the longer distance. Even with a 2.5-5 minute headway (which won't likely happen, see above) instead of 5-10, you only save ~4 minutes on average over the SeaBus. Those are LRT-level savings, not RRT.

Good thing both Purple and the M-Line would both get 2.5-5 minute headways at Brentwood due to not having to share, so transfers aren't a problem at all.

Again, you're skimming.

That's only for UBC Broadway.
The other examples still apply here, like not using East Broadway from Boundary Station and going on the Flats instead.

And Evergreen before the rest of Millennium were put on the drawing board.
The Edmonds-Cariboo Extension was canned outright and they chose a completely different alignment (Millennium).



It's also not exactly the longest route. SLS saves 12 minutes over 502 from King George Station (34 min vs 22 min) in good traffic, but it's also double the length of the North Shore Expo Extension. That would be 6 minutes of savings at half the length.

I said you would have 4-6 minutes of savings from either Lonsdale or Park Royal from the Norgate crossing, so it's in the same general range of what you'd expect from Skytrain.

Also, if you're at a bad time, Bus/Seabus times to Waterfrom from, say Cap Mall (halfway between the Seabus and LGB) can increase to 30 minutes easily due to bad timing from bus/SeaBus transfers and traffic, so consistency is important too.


I'm referring to the extra time taken to transfer (1-2 minutes). Frequency would be ok.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Because none of those are exactly relevant - all three had plenty of empty space for alternate options, and at the same capital cost. With downtown to Lonsdale via First Narrows on a $3-5 billion budget, you're pretty much limited geographically, logistically and financially to "west via Burrard Station, using preexisting Expo infrastructure."

SLS is long, but also direct. Norgate and Park Royal aren't. And since the SeaBus route is almost as long as Central Broadway, SkyTrain should be saving commuters roughly 15 minutes/trip, or at least 12 as mentioned; 4-6 is seriously underperforming.

That's an argument for more bus service on the North Shore in general; Cap Mall specifically would be covered by all SkyTrain options, so you'd get off the SeaBus and take the train over.

A 5-10 minute wait is a bit more obvious than 1-2 minutes.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because none of those are exactly relevant - all three had plenty of empty space for alternate options, and at the same capital cost. With downtown to Lonsdale via First Narrows on a $3-5 billion budget, you're pretty much limited geographically, logistically and financially to "west via Burrard Station, using preexisting Expo infrastructure."

SLS is long, but also direct. Norgate and Park Royal aren't. And since the SeaBus route is almost as long as Central Broadway, SkyTrain should be saving commuters roughly 15 minutes/trip, or at least 12 as mentioned; 4-6 is seriously underperforming.

That's an argument for more bus service on the North Shore in general; Cap Mall specifically would be covered by all SkyTrain options, so you'd get off the SeaBus and take the train over.

A 5-10 minute wait is a bit more obvious than 1-2 minutes.

Huh?

The report didn't say thing about Waterfront-Northgate being impossible. Frankly, we don't know why it breaks off at Burrard.
Why is Waterfront not possible?
It's not like it's easy to put a TBM at Burrard either.

The Cariboo spur would have been worse on the long run, even though it would have cost significantly less to get to Coquitlam from and be much faster to build than the multi-phase Millennium in our timeline.


That's average commute time.
I'm using optimal commute time (all this time so far).

Optimal commute time on the 99B from Artubus and Broadway is 15 minutes, which would be 12 minutes on Skytrain. At rush hour, it's 22 minutes (according to Google Maps). Ditto where the rest of the 10 minutes average time savings are from.


If we're talking about non-optimal commute times (accounting for traffic at rush hour), it's ~30 minutes from Cap Mall to Waterfront using either Seabus or LGB.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Simple: because Burrard is already pointing in that direction.

Using Waterfront as the starting point gives you two options. A) Waterfront becomes a Y-junction terminus, continuing east to the main line and west to First Narrows (thereby halving frequency on both lines, an automatic no-go) or B) Waterfront becomes an intermediate station, continuing east along Hastings to Second Narrows. Anything else requires a sixth OMC, and TransLink understandably wants the Hastings corridor and Expo to stick to the current five.

That’s my entire point: the only considerable time-savings with the Norgate or Park Royal extension are for its corridor from downtown to Lonsdale Quay. Try any of that optimal/non-optimal stuff with Central Lonsdale, Park & Tilford, Phibbs, Maplewood, Lynn Valley, Cap U or Deep Cove? SeaBus ties (or wins outright); we've established that no matter what alignment gets built, the Park Royal-Phibbs corridor will be covered by SkyTrain.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Simple: because Burrard is already pointing in that direction.

Using Waterfront as the starting point gives you two options. A) Waterfront becomes a Y-junction terminus, continuing east to the main line and west to First Narrows (thereby halving frequency on both lines, an automatic no-go) or B) Waterfront becomes an intermediate station, continuing east along Hastings to Second Narrows. Anything else requires a sixth OMC, and TransLink understandably wants the Hastings corridor and Expo to stick to the current five.

That’s my entire point: the only considerable time-savings with the Norgate or Park Royal extension are for its corridor from downtown to Lonsdale Quay. Try any of that optimal/non-optimal stuff with Central Lonsdale, Park & Tilford, Phibbs, Maplewood, Lynn Valley, Cap U or Deep Cove? SeaBus ties (or wins outright); we've established that no matter what alignment gets built, the Park Royal-Phibbs corridor will be covered by SkyTrain.

Hastings doesn't have to be an Expo spur. I just think that's the most likely reason they did what they did here. A more realistic/complete analysis would analyze whether doing so makes any sense.


The SLS intends to have a 6th OMC anyways (in addition to the one being built in Burnaby).

The size of that one is anyone's guess, but I live around there and can tell you there's a ton of underutilized protected industrial land (largely empty lots or storage for concrete blocks or junk) No real space limitations.

There's also room in North Van for an OMC next to the under-construction North Van sewage facility.

It's not like there's no space to expand on the existing OMCs as well (especially at OMC1).
TransLink seems to want smaller OMCs across the entire network, rather than a few big ones.


Maybe it's because you posted this at 2AM (roughly), but I have no idea what you're saying here.

With good timing, going from 15th & Lonsdale Ave to Downtown at rush hour would take the same time on Skytrain as it would on Seabus. Same thing from Lynn Valley (2nd Narrows is slower in some cases as well).


2nd Narrows buses are more competitive mostly from Park + Tilford east.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Hastings doesn't have to be an Expo spur. I just think that's the most likely reason they did what they did here. A more realistic/complete analysis would analyze whether doing so makes any sense.


The SLS intends to have a 6th OMC anyways (in addition to the one being built in Burnaby).

The size of that one is anyone's guess, but I live around there and can tell you there's a ton of underutilized protected industrial land (largely empty lots or storage for concrete blocks or junk) No real space limitations.

There's also room in North Van for an OMC next to the under-construction North Van sewage facility.

It's not like there's no space to expand on the existing OMCs as well (especially at OMC1).

It very much does - Hastings can't use the Edmonds depot without it.

That's the fifth OMC, not counting the Canada's. Since the fourth one cost $300 million and a proportionately-equal sum in the day-to-day operations budget, TransLink likely very much doesn't want to build a sixth one unless they've got a good reason to, and "looks like there's room on Google Maps" isn't a very good reason. Feel free to convince them, not us.

Originally Posted by fredinno

TransLink seems to want smaller OMCs across the entire network, rather than a few big ones.

The fact that each line effectively uses one big one (OMC 2/4 are basically extensions of 1/3) - and that every proposed extension has to connect to that big one - says otherwise. OMC 1/2 is a large part of why the M-Line is aligned how it is.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Maybe it's because you posted this at 2AM (roughly), but I have no idea what you're saying here.

With good timing, going from 15th & Lonsdale Ave to Downtown at rush hour would take the same time on Skytrain as it would on Seabus. Same thing from Lynn Valley (2nd Narrows is slower in some cases as well).


2nd Narrows buses are more competitive mostly from Park + Tilford east.

Right back at you. You're not getting that the First Narrows crossing effectively duplicates SeaBus service, instead of replacing it: if a Norgate or Park Royal extension goes ahead, then as far as Central Lonsdale and Lynn Valley are concerned, it's just a very, very expensive SeaBus which does not improve their commute downtown whatsoever, meaning that a First Narrows crossing's main selling point is next to useless to them.

Current bus commutes are irrelevant to the discussion because all SkyTrain options would replace the R2 (except Norgate, which still needs an R2 stub to Park Royal) and relegate the other buses to local service.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Current bus commutes are irrelevant to the discussion because all SkyTrain options would replace the R2 (except Norgate, which still needs an R2 stub to Park Royal) and relegate the other buses to local service.

Given the history with bus routes feeding the canada line, I think it's safe to expect that with a park royal crossing, west van blue busses would be truncated at park royal instead of carrying on into downtown vancouver. Likewise for the north van bus routes that presently go over the lions gate bridge. But if the crossing was at 2nd narrows these bus routes would probably be left as is. So which crossing is chosen very much does impact existing bus commuters, just not the ones that stay within the north shore.

[Migrant_Coconut]

True, but only with the Park Royal option - Norgate means moving the bus loop from the mall to wherever the station is, and then West Van's FTN has to split between it and the Lions Gate.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

True, but only with the Park Royal option - Norgate means moving the bus loop from the mall to wherever the station is, and then West Van's FTN has to split between it and the Lions Gate.

Or send all the west van busses to the station at norgate where the bus loop is to shorten the routes and save money, just like they did with bridgeport. With the extra transfer this might even make make ambleside to downtown slower than it was with busses.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It very much does - Hastings can't use the Edmonds depot without it.

That's the fifth OMC, not counting the Canada's. Since the fourth one cost $300 million and a proportionately-equal sum in the day-to-day operations budget, TransLink likely very much doesn't want to build a sixth one unless they've got a good reason to, and "looks like there's room on Google Maps" isn't a very good reason. Feel free to convince them, not us.



The fact that each line effectively uses one big one (OMC 2/4 are basically extensions of 1/3) - and that every proposed extension has to connect to that big one - says otherwise. OMC 1/2 is a large part of why the M-Line is aligned how it is.



Right back at you. You're not getting that the First Narrows crossing effectively duplicates SeaBus service, instead of replacing it: if a Norgate or Park Royal extension goes ahead, then as far as Central Lonsdale and Lynn Valley are concerned, it's just a very, very expensive SeaBus which does not improve their commute downtown whatsoever, meaning that a First Narrows crossing's main selling point is next to useless to them.

Current bus commutes are irrelevant to the discussion because all SkyTrain options would replace the R2 (except Norgate, which still needs an R2 stub to Park Royal) and relegate the other buses to local service.

OK, fine, then that means you need to connect Hastings tracks onto the wider SkyTrain network to benefit from the existing OMCs.
Don't have to be so rude.

Hastings can truncate at Waterfront, using one of the existing center platforms as transfer to Expo.
This would likely need side platforms built as well to ease congestion for people leaving the station (ie. Spanish solution), but would allow very rapid transfers across the center platform to Expo (rather than going up and down stairs), connecting Hastings to Expo without turning Expo into a Yonge-style recursive line.
Expo would continue on towards the North Shore.

In practice, the NS buses would end when it reaches Marine Drive in this option. That means the Lonsdale Spur needs to be extended to Queensbury Ave instead of Lonsdale. Everything east of there would just keep using Phibbs.
This would speed up Lynn Valley buses by a few minutes by not having to go west onto .

Expo-West Van spur should be extended to Ambleside on the west side as well to capture 255, 252, 251, 253, 256, and 257 faster than having them continue on to Park Royal (saving ~2min for those buses at peak.)

Future Marine Drive line extensions (not Expo spur) would continue on to Capilano University and Dundrave.

The buses meeting Lonsdale between Lonsdale and around Cap Road still benefit from Skytrain from not having to go East-West to reach either Lonsdale or LGB.

Also, BTW, no idea how you connect Millennium to Purple. That's one hell of a tight turn, and if the gas stations on the intersection of Willingdon and Brentwood gets redeveloped, there's not going to be much room for a spur at Brentwood.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Just stating the facts: yeah, this is the fantasy thread, and lines on a map are fun, but at the end of the day they're just lines. The folks doing Vancouver's real SkyTrains have something else in mind, and usually for an understandable reason.

... So now it's two transfers for (let's say) Gastown to Denman, when it could be one? Getting from Ambleside to Lonsdale means a five-minute wait and then riding all the way to Stanley Park, then waiting another five minutes to switch back? And we're moving the purpose-built, newly-renovated, SeaBus-adjacent loop at the Quay to a smaller one at Queensbury, because... reasons? I'm not even going to touch a Cap U extension - this is a fairly significant overall downgrade from the status quo and/or a Phibbs extension, and much more complicated than a North Shore network has to be. Adding a SkyTrain is supposed to make the bus grid simpler.

It's been made fairly clear that all Purple's turns would be north of the M-Line: east to Hastings, south to Willingdon - or Gilmore, if certain posters are correct - and a straight line south from there. Hardly a big deal.

And having the Expo loop through downtown isn't horrible either; lots of cities which aren't Toronto (Singapore, for example) do it too.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Just stating the facts: yeah, this is the fantasy thread, and lines on a map are fun, but at the end of the day they're just lines. The folks doing Vancouver's real SkyTrains have something else in mind, and usually for an understandable reason.

... So now it's two transfers for (let's say) Gastown to Denman, when it could be one? Getting from Ambleside to Lonsdale means a five-minute wait and then riding all the way to Stanley Park, then waiting another five minutes to switch back? And we're moving the purpose-built, newly-renovated, SeaBus-adjacent loop at the Quay to a smaller one at Queensbury, because... reasons? I'm not even going to touch a Cap U extension - this is a fairly significant overall downgrade from the status quo and/or a Phibbs extension, and much more complicated than a North Shore network has to be. Adding a SkyTrain is supposed to make the bus grid simpler.

It's been made fairly clear that all Purple's turns would be north of the M-Line: east to Hastings, south to Willingdon - or Gilmore, if certain posters are correct - and a straight line south from there. Hardly a big deal.

And having the Expo loop through downtown isn't horrible either; lots of cities which aren't Toronto (Singapore, for example) do it too.

Well, it's a very fast transfer, since you're not going up and down flights of stairs. If you coordinate train arrivals well, you can literally walk from 1 to another in 30 seconds.

One of the lines has to be a transfer, since you can't have more than 1 spur without frequency issues. Same thing with Purple, except you can't integrate it into the same station and need walkways to connect the two, meaning you can't really pull the same trick I just mentioned very well.


Expo can go across Hastings initially if it's build before North Shore. I just think having a line that actually goes in a single general direction is less confusing for users and more flexible than one that combines multiple separate lines.
Signapore's Blue loops around DT once before going east-west again. That's not really the same thing here.

???
Just because bus riders can connect to Skytrain at a certain location away from the main bus loops, that doesn't mean the existing loops/exchanges are suddenly abandoned or are unimportant. That's never really happened on Skytrain (except Airport Exchange (but not really), and Langley, which is being moved away from its current bad location).

Not every bus has to terminate at an exchange, and many buses on Evergreen still terminate on Coq Central despite having closer Skytrain connections (eg. on Evergreen Extension: 160,183, 186, 188).

And I don't think that sunk-costs are a good argument here.


I was pointing out that if Hastings has to connect to Expo at Waterfront because of OMCs, then Purple's tracks need to directly connect to the rest of the Skytrain network somewhere, and there's really no good place for that if you want the transfers to be at Brentwood and not somewhere like Holdom or Gilmore.


Also, reminder of the proposed network (with extensions):


Capilano Extension is primarily for the NS itself, not people from outside the North Shore. It's not really that far, and I can't see Capilano University being happy about having Skytrain go to Phibbs and not them as well.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It’s not the stairs that messes up transfers, it’s the frequency. By using the Expo’s tracks, you’re still halving service on both lines; two-minute headways would mean a four-minute wait at rush hour (ten at off-peak), and that’s not very fast at all. At least with a Burrard spur, it’s just Gastown <-> Burrard, Burrard <-> Denman: you only transfer once instead of twice. Ditto Purple with the Millennium interchange.

If passengers could understand the original M-Line where it looped back in on itself, then the Expo turning around through downtown and heading in a completely new direction should be perfectly logical. Hong Kong and San Fran do it too.

So you’re operating four major bus loops on the North Shore (Park Royal, Lonsdale, Phibbs, and now Queensbury) instead of three? Again, you’re overcomplicating things. And Lonsdale Exchange’s not a sunk cost at all; anything at Queensbury would be smaller, non-weatherproof, not connected to the SeaBus and likely lousier altogether.

Purple can be a spur from Royal Oak if TransLink absolutely has to, but evidently, they don’t mind building a new OMC for that one... they do mind doing the same for Hastings or First Narrows when they can save capital/operations costs and logistics if they “just” use the ones they already have.

Bowinn Ma’s study group has already concluded that a gondola up the hill to Cap doesn’t justify the cost vs. more bus service, so it’s a fair assumption that a SkyTrain extension won’t happen either.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It’s not the stairs that messes up transfers, it’s the frequency. By using the Expo’s tracks, you’re still halving service on both lines; two-minute headways would mean a four-minute wait at rush hour (ten at off-peak), and that’s not very fast at all. At least with a Burrard spur, it’s just Gastown <-> Burrard, Burrard <-> Denman: you only transfer once instead of twice. Ditto Purple with the Millennium interchange.

If passengers could understand the original M-Line where it looped back in on itself, then the Expo turning around through downtown and heading in a completely new direction should be perfectly logical. Hong Kong and San Fran do it too.

So you’re operating four major bus loops on the North Shore (Park Royal, Lonsdale, Phibbs, and now Queensbury) instead of three? Again, you’re overcomplicating things. And Lonsdale Exchange’s not a sunk cost at all; anything at Queensbury would be smaller, non-weatherproof, not connected to the SeaBus and likely lousier altogether.

Purple can be a spur from Royal Oak if TransLink absolutely has to, but evidently, they don’t mind building a new OMC for that one... they do mind doing the same for Hastings or First Narrows when they can save capital/operations costs and logistics if they “just” use the ones they already have.

Bowinn Ma’s study group has already concluded that a gondola up the hill to Cap doesn’t justify the cost vs. more bus service, so it’s a fair assumption that a SkyTrain extension won’t happen either.

OK, you seem to not really understand:


The 2 lines do not connect under normal service, but the tracks still connect to allow the use of the existing OMCs.
This will not affect frequency on either line, because they do not intersect in normal operation.

Also, BTW, none of the NS reports even mention OMCs.
We don't know if they're fine for building a new OMC or not for Purple anyways.
You're just speculating.

Purple now has to not only go to Metrotown, but also to Royal Oak. Not really a cost savings here, so it's still a disadvantage.



Neither the Muni Metro or the Hong Kong system go backwards anywhere to the degree Hastings-Expo does.
At best, it's more of a circular route rather than a direct one.

Millennium when it looped around itself kind of went from nowhere to nowhere and underperformed for its first decade, leading to a resurgence in municipalities demanding LRT.
Even if it wasn't confusing, it's not a good precedent.



No. I'm not:
Lafrage Lake-Douglas and Lincoln are not bus loops.
They're just regular stops so that rest-of-region transfers are faster rather than everyone having to get off at Coquitlam Central.

That's not overcomplicating things, this is common throughout the TransLink network. Not all buses have to stop at the bus bus exchanges- they can stop at the stations, even if they still terminate at an exchange later (for direct bus-bus transfers).
And SeaBus wouldn't exist anyways anymore, at least not in its current frequency/form.


Not really the same thing.
A gondola right now would be an isolated section with no interconnection other than buses, while a Skytrain would be part of a wider network that could benefit from the network effect.

[Migrant_Coconut]

You’ve still got an unnecessary one-stop spur along Burrard-Waterfront slowing things down – if you’d suggested upgrading Burrard with the third platform and running a Hastings spur from there, then maybe it could work. With this, they might as well just split the main line 50/50 to Hastings and First Narrows and be done with it - KISS principle and all that.

The Millennium had low ridership because it went through a bunch of nowhere suburbia back to the line’s halfway point; the Expo goes downtown, pulls a U-turn, comes out in a different direction and ends at a different suburb, just like the MTR and Muni. Hardly confusing or inefficient.

Speculation based on what we’re seeing; all the studies or lack thereof imply we're not going to have a separate line or fifth/sixth OMC on Hastings in any part of Transport 2050. This is starting to sound like the interurban to Chilliwack argument.

That also describes Park Royal. Call it a loop, an exchange, an interchange or whatever you want to, you’re still adding a fourth transfer centre to remove a couple of minutes' commute time.
And yes, the SeaBus would still exist in its current position and schedule because it’s still just as useful as your SkyTrain route (if not more, depending on the timing) for anybody east of Thurlow or Cap Mall. The only way to replace it outright is to run straight from Lonsdale to Waterfront, and that’s not happening.

Higher upfront cost than the gondola, equally-low return; the network effect doesn’t apply here unless A) the lift can’t handle Cap’s future demand (unlikely) or B) the train captures extra ridership that’d prefer the bus to Cap over the lift (also unlikely).

[Tvisforme]

Yes, unless we hear differently from TransLink it would appear that the SeaBus is a part of their long-term plans. As for Capilano University, it is highly unlikely that SkyTrain would go there for less than 13 000 students total (including the other campuses) during limited hours when it is much more productive to push further east for the Maplewood developments. Plus, if the R2 doesn't even go up the hill, why would SkyTrain?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Yes, unless we hear differently from TransLink it would appear that the SeaBus is a part of their long-term plans. As for Capilano University, it is highly unlikely that SkyTrain would go there for less than 13 000 students total (including the other campuses) during limited hours when it is much more productive to push further east for the Maplewood developments. Plus, if the R2 doesn't even go up the hill, why would SkyTrain?

I agree. The problem is that I've highlighted is that SeaBus does not have a real advantage over Skytrain.
If they keep it even if Skytrain is there, we know ridership isn't going to be what it used to be. Then, questions will start being raised over how useful it is. It's ok if you're directly from Lonsdale and Waterfront, but not great if you're slightly off from those terminuses.

Douglas College (minus the people at the New West Campus) has a comparable # of people to Cap University. Also, a station at Lynnmour would benefit any development on the Cove Forest and CMHC lands, as well as buses on Mt. Seymour Pky in general.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You’ve still got an unnecessary one-stop spur along Burrard-Waterfront slowing things down – if you’d suggested upgrading Burrard with the third platform and running a Hastings spur from there, then maybe it could work. With this, they might as well just split the main line 50/50 to Hastings and First Narrows and be done with it - KISS principle and all that.

The Millennium had low ridership because it went through a bunch of nowhere suburbia back to the line’s halfway point; the Expo goes downtown, pulls a U-turn, comes out in a different direction and ends at a different suburb, just like the MTR and Muni. Hardly confusing or inefficient.

Speculation based on what we’re seeing; all the studies or lack thereof imply we're not going to have a separate line or fifth/sixth OMC on Hastings in any part of Transport 2050.

That also describes Park Royal. Call it a loop, an exchange, an interchange or whatever you want to, you’re still adding a fourth transfer centre to remove a couple of minutes' commute time.
And yes, the SeaBus would still exist in its current position and schedule because it’s still just as useful as your SkyTrain route (if not more, depending on the timing) for anybody east of Thurlow or Cap Mall. The only way to replace it outright is to run straight from Lonsdale to Waterfront, and that’s not happening.

Higher upfront cost than the gondola, equally-low return; the network effect doesn’t apply here unless A) the lift can’t handle Cap’s future demand (unlikely) or B) the train captures extra ridership that’d prefer the bus to Cap over the lift (also unlikely).

That's the platform location. Not a spur.
Again, we don't know why they're trying to add a spur to Burrard instead of Waterfront. There's no connectivity to Canada, so that's automatically a massive negative. How you start tunneling from the Burrard end is another question, as is trying to build extra platforms deep underground in the CBD.

These sorts of changes have happened before. You have to take the more preliminary stuff with grains of salt.

If you're not going to accept that premise, we can just accept that disagreement and continue on.

That also describes Park Royal. Call it a loop, an exchange, an interchange or whatever you want to, you’re still adding a fourth transfer centre to remove a couple of minutes' commute time.

So apparently TransLink is wrong for adding bus stops to Lincoln and Gateway 'just to remove a couple minutes' commute time.' They should just force everyone to get off at Coq Central and Surrey Central. Got it.
These 'few minutes on each end thing' kind of matters when you add all them up.

From experience, people will rather stay out on narrow sidewalks in the soaking rain or cold rather than wait on dedicated exchanges with better facilities just so they can shave a couple minutes. (eg. 130 transfers onto Hastings bus riders will very often huddle around the underbuilt bus stops, clogging up the sidewalk, instead of waiting at Kootenay).

[Migrant_Coconut]

So then how do you get from Waterfront to Burrard in your configuration? Pretty sure that’s a “spur.”
Oh, we know: because Burrard allows the main line and OMC 1/2 to run to First Narrows, and Waterfront doesn't. It's the same reason why the Cariboo extension, original Millennium Line and original Nineties Gold Line were all staged out of OMC 1/2 as well.
North Shore riders either take the SeaBus to Waterfront, or ride the 1N to Granville and switch to City Centre; yeah, they have to get out and cross the street first, but that’s what everybody else does already. It is what it is.

At no point in the last forty years has TransLink ever flip-flopped on where to put a depot.

Neither Lincoln nor Gateway are terminus stops – their bus routes do indeed connect to Coq and Surrey Central; having North Shore buses terminate at Queensbury instead of continuing to Lonsdale is somewhat ridiculous. And from my experience, passengers prefer to have one central point where they can transfer from any one bus to any other; Queensbury saves them little to no time, and may in fact waste it.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I agree. The problem is that I've highlighted is that SeaBus does not have a real advantage over Skytrain.
If they keep it even if Skytrain is there, we know ridership isn't going to be what it used to be. Then, questions will start being raised over how useful it is. It's ok if you're directly from Lonsdale and Waterfront, but not great if you're slightly off from those terminuses.

Douglas College (minus the people at the New West Campus) has a comparable # of people to Cap University. Also, a station at Lynnmour would benefit any development on the Cove Forest and CMHC lands, as well as buses on Mt. Seymour Pky in general.

On the other hand, First Narrows SkyTrain lacks a real advantage over the SeaBus, precluding a reason for it to be built in the next two decades in the first place; they’re evenly-matched if you’re at Lonsdale or anywhere north or east of it.

It helps that Douglas College has the advantage of being near central Coquitlam on a flat plane surrounded by developable land; from personal experience, Cap’s up on a hill in the middle of nowhere with not much room to grow.