Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
You’re late to the party, but we’d gone over TransLink’s line way back when and concluded that 41st has more graves and parks than 49th and therefore can’t densify as effectively - and no, those graves and parks will most likely still be there and not be relocated by the time the SkyTrain opens.
Langara’s slightly closer to Main than Cambie, albeit walkable from both; the surrounding area’s imminent density notwithstanding, it’s much more useful to have a connection to a college and a commercial street than two strip malls and a gas station further north. Sunset and Killarney are more oriented toward 49th as well; Killarney’s got a park which hinders density too, but also a large public pool and rink that help offset that.
Regardless, each street is going to get fairly busy in the future (some parts more than others), and having a “N-S” transfer that isn’t the Canada Line would be a benefit for both.
Yes it is. Instead of three lines all terminating at Metrotown and multiple relocated parks and graveyards, we’ve got one line that goes from Brentwood to Metrotown to Oakridge to UBC and intersects the Expo with one or zero transfers, zero extra track switches and zero disturbing of existing greenspace. We don’t get any simpler than that.
Metro 2040 is a density map, not a transit map; Kennedy Stewart's demonstrated that he’s fairly clueless about public transportation, so it’s more likely he was influenced by TransLink. If one wants to hit everything from Park Royal to UBC with one single “ring road” line, then a 41th/49th shift makes perfect sense. No politics necessary.
And since Willingdon and South Van would be going through similar terrain in a similarly built-up area, 50% contingency for them as well seems reasonable - better to go underbudget than overbudget.
Development in the far future that may or may not happen aside, the point remains: Metrotown has more bus transfers than Joyce.
Central Park ain’t moving any more than Stanley Park is. And a local shopping street like Commercial having as much growth as all of “downtown” Maple Ridge seems entirely appropriate.
They’d have to bore anyway, since much of 41st is too narrow and too dense to go elevatede. If the SkyTrain’s not using the bus lanes, the 41 and 49 can take over them; it’s not a sunk cost nor an expensive one when bus lanes are so cheap.
You’re assuming that there’d be a Patterson Station at all. It’s true how ridership past Tyne is practically nonexistent, but they still need at least one token station; Boundary can be developed on three quadrants instead of two, so TransLink may very well cut out Patterson and call it a day.
|
Do you have a link to that?
And no, 49th still loses in actual ridership between the stations to 41st. This problem will get worse over time due to riders orienting themselves to 41st more and more, regardless of what the line said.
Yes, 41st has slightly more 'dead' space than 49th due to the Mountain View Cemetery taking up a quarter of the Fraser-41st intersection. It doesn't compensate for the longer line length.
49th also has slight problems like you've pointed out for 41st too.
The Boundary-49th intersection is 2 and a
half, because the Cemetery starts at 5-7min away from the intersection.
41st/43rd-Boundary also provides much of the access to the north side of Kingsway-Central Park that would be provided by the Expo Boundary 'future station' (making it unnecessary) and hits Swangard Stadium.
I think it's even-even overall in terms of actual dead space.
Or at least it's a very slight difference that doesn't really change the calculus too much.
49th skips the Kingsway-Joyce commercial district as well, which is also important and 8-10 min away from Joyce Station.
Terminating at either Joyce or Metrotown.
I agree the latter makes more sense.
And why can't you do that 'single line' thing on 41st (passing through Central Park underground to get to Metrotown)?
So did Transport 2040, TransLink's previous version of the current plan (Metro and TransLink plans tend to line up):
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/tra...sport-2040.pdf)
There's no explanation to the shift.
No, but he
was directly involved in negotiations.
If he says the line is nominal and not solid,
it's nominal and not solid.
Period.
He knows more than you, me, or anyone else in this forum how the discussions went.
Dunno, Broadway has a lot more existing density (mostly midrises) than either 41st or 49th (mostly SFHs). Same with Willingdon.
SLS also has its own difficulties - it had to go through swampy ALR lands and 6-8% slopes going up and down the ridges on Fleetwood and Clayton.
If they can do
that with a 25% margin, so can every other elevated line.
Much more can go wrong with tunneling vs building above ground.
Yes, it is...?
Unless you're planning on widening 41st to 6 lanes again later on, 41st is going to remain 4 travel lanes for the foreseeable future.
The western part of 41st already has bus lanes reducing the road width to 2-3 lanes.
That assumes they don't just add bus lanes to the entire corridor rather than half and half.
This is kind of the situation with all the future R-bus routes, and a key benefit to the R-buses.
You can ease people into having less road or parking lanes, making it easier and cheaper to build cheaper elevated tracks rather than going tunneled.
Industrial Ave in Langley is
also only 4 lanes wide (with
very narrow sidewalks- I go there all the time), and that's supposed to become the 'city center' corridor of Langley, cutting it down to effectively 2 lanes, instead of using the wider Fraser or Logan Ave corridors.
4 lanes (barely, again) is apparently plenty wide enough for elevated SkyTrain for districts with up to 5.5 FAR and 15 stories (ie.- OV-style but a bit denser, which is probably plenty for 41st/49th, especially if it's all the way across the corridor.)
So 7 stations for both 41st and 49th? (map shown below, with red stations being future infill stations.)
Seems like it's an 1.5km extra track length for minimal extra demand/land.
Prev
Linear Mode
