Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit - Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows | BRT/RRT?

[madog222]

-snip-

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

That's at the western end of the Willingdon Lands.
I could also see the area around the Grand Villa Hotel redeveloped/intensified.


https://infotel.ca/newsitem/planners...-ideas/it92139

Technically that's industrial/mixed use land, but it might be revisited due to SkyTrain.

Or not.
BCIT is a technical university, after all.

It's probably not worth it considering the 2 sharp turns required for this.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

To service what, exactly? Nothing there except a few low-rise office buildings.

Burnaby Hospital would be slightly better served by a station at Gilmore/Canada Way than Willingdon/Goard.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Burnaby Hospital would be slightly better served by a station at Gilmore/Canada Way than Willingdon/Goard.

The hill from Gilmore/Canada Way to Burnaby Hospital is pretty intense. Emergency on the southwest side (ground oriented) is located on the third floor because the hospital is built into the hillside. I don't think a station there would service the hospital very well.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The hill from Gilmore/Canada Way to Burnaby Hospital is pretty intense. Emergency on the southwest side (ground oriented) is located on the third floor because the hospital is built into the hillside. I don't think a station there would service the hospital very well.

Yeah, you'd have to move Burnaby Hospital entirely if you wanted to service it with SkyTrain.
You can't service both it and BCIT.

The space is theoretically there, but that's going to cost an arm and a leg to do.


If we already had the station today, we could have spent a bit more money to build entirely new hospital facilities on Willingdon instead of redeveloping on the existing Hospital.

[chowhou]

As an extra selling point for Gilmore Station as the North Shore Skytrain exchange vs Brentwood, I came to the realisation today that Brentwood Station has exactly 3 fare gates with I think only enough expansion capacity for around 6 without impeding the pedestrian overpass due to the way the station is built (concrete isn't moving).

Gilmore inexplicably has 8 fare gates already installed with expansion capacity for more, not to mention the mezzanine is designed to expand while the Brentwood mezzanine is not.

The other stations which are or will be Skytrain exchanges all have more fare gates already installed:

Waterfront: 20 (Bear in mind Canada Line and Expo have separate fare zones)
Granville/Vancouver City Centre: 13 + 6 (If we count this as an exchange)
Broadway City Hall: 5 (Expansion room for around 7-8 plus the theoretical northwest entrance but that's unlikely at this point)
Bridgeport: 5 (One of the more limited, with only enough expansion room for maybe one more)
Commercial Broadway: 22
Columbia: 9
Lougheed: 12
Production Way: 6 (Officially considered an exchange plus will be the Burnaby Mountain Gondola terminus)
Moody Centre: 6 (WCE transfer station)
Coquitlam Central: 6 (WCE transfer station + future spur)

Rapidbus only honourable mentions:
Burrard: 17
Joyce-Collingwood: 14
Oakridge-41st: 4 (Expansion room for at least 10, however)
Scott Road: 11
Surrey Central: 15
King George: 8

Brentwood looks and feels expansive but it's actually a bit underbuilt as a station I think. A theoretical North Shore Skytrain station would be located to the west, but this interferes with the pedestrian overpass, so construction wouldn't be very easy.

[madog222]

Brentwood is getting more fargates with the current renovation and in should be technically possible to build a transfer corridor completely within the farepaid zone.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by madog222

...in should be technically possible to build a transfer corridor completely within the farepaid zone.

I don't see it, unless you propose demolishing and rebuilding the existing platform.

[chowhou]

From: https://www.translink.ca/plans-and-p.../rail-projects

North stationhouse improvements:

[...]
Doubling the fare gates on the mezzanine level from three to six to improve customer access;

Six is exactly what I expected and still on the lower end for a station which would be an important exchange location in my opinion.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I don't see it, unless you propose demolishing and rebuilding the existing platform.

Yes it would be a big job but wouldn't be replacing the entire platform though still not practical. Either come off the western end of the platform parallel to the tracks or perpendicular to the platform between a pair of ribs on the roof structure.

[Tvisforme]

Late to this thread, but a thought on an earlier post:

Originally Posted by fredinno

....If the Upper Levels is widened to 6-8 lanes as well (along with other road improvements that would go along with it, like improving overall east-west connectivity with bridges over the creeks), that’s probably the end of the current wide political push for rapid transit from NS municipalities (or at least cripple it)....

Upper Levels, probably, new creek crossings, quite unlikely. The way the North Shore is currently laid out has left it so that the good locations for new crossings involve existing neighbourhoods and parks with quiet residental streets upgrading to busy avenues. If you're a North Shore mayor or councillor who's looking to get out of public life, an easy way would be to propose bulldozing homes and parkland for roads.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Late to this thread, but a thought on an earlier post:



Upper Levels, probably, new creek crossings, quite unlikely. The way the North Shore is currently laid out has left it so that the good locations for new crossings involve existing neighbourhoods and parks with quiet residental streets upgrading to busy avenues. If you're a North Shore mayor or councillor who's looking to get out of public life, an easy way would be to propose bulldozing homes and parkland for roads.

I haven't had time to fully respond to Migrant, but the new Keith Rd. Interchange did basically just that.
That entire area used to be a couple blocks of SFHs, completely demolished to build the road extension (and building new towers, since they had to demolish everything there already anyways.)

So there's not much of a difference in destroying stuff that crossing streams vs crossing the Upper Levels (unless it's particularly important like the Capilano or Seymour.)

The proposed western extension of Lower Levels Road (presumably to connect it across Mission 3 to 1st and Welch) would also have massive impacts on the suburbs there and the Squamish Cemetery.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I haven't had time to fully respond to Migrant, but the new Keith Rd. Interchange did basically just that.
That entire area used to be a couple blocks of SFHs, completely demolished to build the road extension (and building new towers, since they had to demolish everything there already anyways.)

So there's not much of a difference in destroying stuff that crossing streams vs crossing the Upper Levels (unless it's particularly important like the Capilano or Seymour.)

The proposed western extension of Lower Levels Road (presumably to connect it across Mission 3 to 1st and Welch) would also have massive impacts on the suburbs there and the Squamish Cemetery.

If you're talking about the Seylynn development and realignment of the Fern St. underpass, you're grossly misunderstanding the politics at play here on the North Shore. The realignment and development went hand-in-hand as part of the Lower Lynn OCP and wasn't simply done for transportation reasons. The realignment was done to redirect traffic away from the development of the proposed town centre; The towers weren't just built "since they had to demolish everything there already". On top of that, the public backlash against the whole project due to the densification and replacement of SFHs directly lead to the past two NIMBY dominated city councils which have obstructed any development ever since.

It isn't Sim City up in these here parts, this is very much the suburbs and suburban politics dominate. It takes a strong will (and a political suicide wish) to push against SFHs here.

Originally Posted by madog222

Yes it would be a big job but wouldn't be replacing the entire platform though still not practical. Either come off the western end of the platform parallel to the tracks or perpendicular to the platform between a pair of ribs on the roof structure.

I quite like Brentwood Station so it'd be a shame to see a Frankenstein-ed version of it.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by fredinno

....That entire area used to be a couple blocks of SFHs, completely demolished to build the road extension (and building new towers, since they had to demolish everything there already anyways.)

This is not accurate, sorry. The Keith Road extension was built to improve the connection between Keith Road and the former Fern Street overpass. The highway project came after that. There were some homes expropriated for the highway work but these were homes already adjacent to a highway, as you can see on Google Maps historical views. New crossings and their road networks would be going through residential neighbourhoods and public parks.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The proposed western extension of Lower Levels Road (presumably to connect it across Mission 3 to 1st and Welch) would also have massive impacts on the suburbs there and the Squamish Cemetery.

If you can find evidence of a contemporary real-world plan to plow through a First Nations cemetery so that truck traffic can short-cut across Mission 1 (not 3) from Esplanade to West 1st (the Low Level Road is east of St Andrews Avenue), please share it. I think you're confusing that area with the oft-proposed but never built extension of West 1st from Garden to Capilano through the lower portion of Capilano 5.

[officedweller]

Random comments:

• If Brentwood Station will be the busiest station in the Brentwood Town Centre area because of the densities all around it (versus Gilmore largely to the east) - do you really want to add the passenger load of transferring passengers to that station?
• If a transfer is to be built at Brentwood, I think the vertical access from an underground station would have to be on the unbuilt southeast (auto dealership) site up to the existing mezzanine. No modifications to the existing station would be required - it would just be a fairly long transfer.
• In terms of the routing from Gilmore Station to BCIT, be wary of aligning the guideway along the north side of the TCH between Gilmore and Willingdon or through the Willingdon intercahnge because that may prevent the future widening of the TCH for the desired collector/distributor system. I think an overpass crossing at Gilmore over the TCH could better accomodate that future expansion.
• The suburban office park layouts shouldn't prevent future redevelopment with denser projects (whether commercial, industrial or residential).(i.e. growth-shaping, not growth-serving)

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Random comments:

• If Brentwood Station will be the busiest station in the Brentwood Town Centre area because of the densities all around it (versus Gilmore largely to the east) - do you really want to add the passenger load of transferring passengers to that station?

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

• If a transfer is to be built at Brentwood, I think the vertical access from an underground station would have to be on the unbuilt southeast (auto dealership) site up to the existing mezzanine. No modifications to the existing station would be required - it would just be a fairly long transfer.

If an exchange station is built at Brentwood, it could either go below the Millennium Line underground, or possibly above the Millennium Line. Below ground seems worse to me but I suppose it wouldn't be worse than some of the insane underground transfers in Asia. I think the new elevator at the south stationhouse fouls that idea a little bit though (unless you're proposing a separate farezone).

• In terms of the routing from Gilmore Station to BCIT, be wary of aligning the guideway along the north side of the TCH between Gilmore and Willingdon because that may prevent the future widening of the TCH for the desired collector/distributor system. I think an overpass crossing at Gilmore over the TCH could better accomodate that future expansion.

In my mind I imagine the guideway following Still Creek from Gilmore to the McDonald's and then crossing the TCH aligned north-south beside the Willingdon underpass. I don't believe this will foul any TCH plans.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If an exchange station is built at Brentwood, it could either go below the Millennium Line underground, or possibly above the Millennium Line. Below ground seems worse to me but I suppose it wouldn't be worse than some of the insane underground transfers in Asia. I think the new elevator at the south stationhouse fouls that idea a little bit though (unless you're proposing a separate farezone).

I think they'd remove the 'new' elevator and have one or two from deep underground (along with escalators).
I doubt they could go above the M-Line because of the steep hill south of Lougheed.

In my mind I imagine the guideway following Still Creek from Gilmore to the McDonald's and then crossing the TCH aligned north-south beside the Willingdon underpass. I don't believe this will foul any TCH plans.

Not sure if it can snake through the Still Creek business park there without running parallel to the highway for a bit.
The Hub International Building seems to be in the way and you would need to avoid the habitat sensitive creek area.


https://www.google.com/maps/search/w...!1e3?entry=ttu

The collector configuration doesn't change the interchange much, but how would a guideway get there?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Random comments:

• If Brentwood Station will be the busiest station in the Brentwood Town Centre area because of the densities all around it (versus Gilmore largely to the east) - do you really want to add the passenger load of transferring passengers to that station?

Other posters have pointed out that Brentwood is a little too underbuilt to work as a future interchange, so in this case a detour makes sense, BUT otherwise you want all the density and all the transit in one big central hub in order to maximize ridership and limit the amount of one-stop Brentwood-Gilmore trips. Same reason the terminus is at Metrotown instead of Patterson.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Other posters have pointed out that Brentwood is a little too underbuilt to work as a future interchange, so in this case a detour makes sense, BUT otherwise you want all the density and all the transit in one big central hub in order to maximize ridership and limit the amount of one-stop Brentwood-Gilmore trips. Same reason the terminus is at Metrotown instead of Patterson.

Dunno, Brentwood's platforms are actually overbuilt for the demand it gets.

The bus stops less so, but there is space on Lougheed and Dawson St. for bus stops.

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think they'd remove the 'new' elevator and have one or two from deep underground (along with escalators).
I doubt they could go above the M-Line because of the steep hill south of Lougheed.



Not sure if it can snake through the Still Creek business park there without running parallel to the highway for a bit.
The Hub International Building seems to be in the way and you would need to avoid the habitat sensitive creek area.

The collector configuration doesn't change the interchange much, but how would a guideway get there?

It's probably following Still Creek to Willingdon.
That may not be the best move environmentally-speaking.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

If you can find evidence of a contemporary real-world plan to plow through a First Nations cemetery so that truck traffic can short-cut across Mission 1 (not 3) from Esplanade to West 1st (the Low Level Road is east of St Andrews Avenue), please share it. I think you're confusing that area with the oft-proposed but never built extension of West 1st from Garden to Capilano through the lower portion of Capilano 5.

https://northshoreconnects.ca/projects/
Dunno.
They call it the "Low Level Road Extension", which implies connecting 1st to Low Level Road through Mission 3.
There's also the extension across Capilano, but calling it 'Low Level Road Extension' is kind of misleading if it doesn't connect to the Low Level Road.

There's nothing detailed, so I couldn't tell you.

Originally Posted by chowhou

If you're talking about the Seylynn development and realignment of the Fern St. underpass, you're grossly misunderstanding the politics at play here on the North Shore. The realignment and development went hand-in-hand as part of the Lower Lynn OCP and wasn't simply done for transportation reasons. The realignment was done to redirect traffic away from the development of the proposed town centre; The towers weren't just built "since they had to demolish everything there already". On top of that, the public backlash against the whole project due to the densification and replacement of SFHs directly lead to the past two NIMBY dominated city councils which have obstructed any development ever since.

Well yeah, they could have just built less dense developments on the expropriated SFH land.
That area is technically away from Phibbs, not towards it.

It isn't Sim City up in these here parts, this is very much the suburbs and suburban politics dominate. It takes a strong will (and a political suicide wish) to push against SFHs here.

From my limited understanding of the politics in DNV, it seems to be that people were more against the 'tower' part of the project rather than the 'road' section- that people were willing to bear the new road if it cut down on congestion, but not the towers.

All this kind of makes SkyTrain a more difficult sell politically vs road expansions.

The current demand on R2 is below what you'd want for a SkyTrain, even if you assume it'd double after you connect it to Millennium, and you can't justify it with future growth, especially since that spaghetti arterial network means you want to push as much development into the SkyTrain corridors as possible to limit congestion from people coming from outside the transit corridor (for whom it's even more convenient use the Upper Levels than to use SkyTrain/transit).

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://northshoreconnects.ca/projects/
Dunno.
They call it the "Low Level Road Extension", which implies connecting 1st to Low Level Road through Mission 3.
There's also the extension across Capilano, but calling it 'Low Level Road Extension' is kind of misleading if it doesn't connect to the Low Level Road.

It's not misleading if one is familiar with the North Shore. Knowledge of the history of the various proposals for lower-level connections would help avoid erroneously confusing Esplanade - which is directly adjacent to Mission 3 - with the Low Level Road that is almost a kilometre east.

Originally Posted by fredinno

There's nothing detailed, so I couldn't tell you.

Come on. The document you linked clearly states:

North Shore Connects is working together to evaluate a western Lower Level road extension, a secondary east-west connector from the Park Royal area to West 1st across the Capilano River.

Originally Posted by fredinno

From my limited understanding of the politics in DNV

Since you're clearly aware of these limitations, can you perhaps please trust your fellow contributors who may have a slightly better understanding of the history and politics of the North Shore?