Transit Fantasies

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Pretty sure also that the city can't do this without TransLink's approval. There used to be a shuttle bus running on a loop in New Westminster that had to get special permission from TransLink to operate because only TransLink's allowed to offer transit service like that.

Surely this isn't the case? I don't think Greyhound, the Stanley Park horse carriages, or the Vancouver hop-on-hop-off tours need permission to operate, do they?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Surely this isn't the case? I don't think Greyhound, the Stanley Park horse carriages, or the Vancouver hop-on-hop-off tours need permission to operate, do they?

Those are different from public transit. In this case, a streetcar is within TransLink's mandate. A hop-on-hop-off bus isn't, neither is a tourist horse carriage.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Surely this isn't the case? I don't think Greyhound, the Stanley Park horse carriages, or the Vancouver hop-on-hop-off tours need permission to operate, do they?

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Those are different from public transit. In this case, a streetcar is within TransLink's mandate. A hop-on-hop-off bus isn't, neither is a tourist horse carriage.

It makes sense as well because you would want the streetcar to be properly integrated with other transit services. That can be done between separate agencies, of course, but it complicates matters since there's more than one body with a voice in service levels. TransLink has to cover the area the streetcar line services and would have to plan bus service around it to integrate without duplication. If the CoV decides a streetcar is costing too much and pulls the plug, Translink now has a hole in its network that affects multiple other lines.

[madog222]

Translink is given sole authority over public transit within Metro Vancouver. Their main criteria for approval of an Independent Transit Service is that it does not reduce their system's effectiveness nor financially viability. There is no doubt the street car would take away significant ridership from Translink and interfere with the downtown bus network (stops and trolley wires). Vancouver applying for Provincial or Federal funds would also be an issue as these would likely be funds that would otherwise go to Translink.

https://www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/programs-and-studies/independent-transit-services

As an example five years ago they approved a bus service running directly between Surrey and UBC (it lasted a year until their bus was repossessed) while at the same time not approving the same company to run UBC to Commercial Broadway. No idea if the hop-on hop-off required their approval.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

River District was expected to have a build-out population on 12,500, before they added more density (so that now it'll be more like 15,000).

And I agree with your suggestion that the City couldn't (and shouldn't) try to take this on. The last person who wanted to pursue that was Suzanne Anton. She wasn't elected.

The City should still keep the ROW for the streetcar open. NEFC and South False Creek removes them... forcing the streetcar onto the street.

23 is always full, though IMO, that's because it's using the community Shuttles instead of regular buses, and TransLink continues to insist on using the smaller buses instead of the larger ones.

If you wanted a nice-touristy service, get some fancy trackless trams.


There's not much room for growth on 100 after the rest of the River District is built out.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

NEFC and South False Creek removes them... forcing the streetcar onto the street.

No they don't.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

No they don't.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-false-creek-south-plan-1.6208873
That was a common complaint here about the False Creek South Plan. There are buildings placed inside the rail trench to add density. Same with the Pacific Blvd in NEFC only being 6 lanes instead of 8, which would be needed if the streetcar would have its own lane.

But whatever.
I’m always wrong, so that can’t possibly be the case.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-false-creek-south-plan-1.6208873
That was a common complaint here about the False Creek South Plan. There are buildings placed inside the rail trench to add density. Same with the Pacific Blvd in NEFC only being 6 lanes instead of 8, which would be needed if the streetcar would have its own lane.

But whatever.
I’m always wrong, so that can’t possibly be the case.

There isn't (yet) a False Creek South Plan. From the City website: "Community planning to begin in False Creek South - October 29 2021 – City Council has voted unanimously to direct City staff to proceed with a formal community planning process for the City’s lands in False Creek South."

Then there was an election, and so far I'm fairly sure there hasn't been any launch of the community planning process.

Similarly with NEFC there isn't an approved final design yet. When Parsons were hired to do more recent design work their report said "Pacific Boulevard and Quebec Street within the NEFC study area are both identified as potential future streetcar routes. The street and utility design for these streets have protected a right-of-way to minimise any future reconstruction requirements for a potential streetcar system."

There have been various iterations of design over the years, and there has never been an entirely segregated streetcar system proposed - the 2005 original design by IBI had it generally segregated from traffic from Granville Island to Pacific Boulevard, a combination of segregation and mixed on-street traffic on Columbia Street, and mixed with traffic east/west along Cordova Street and Water Street respectively. The most recent feasibility study (in 2019) still had options for how Pacific Boulevard would work. Again, as far as I know, there hasn't yet been a decision. As it's (correctly) in the fantasy thread for now, who knows how long it might be before actual designs turn into real streetcar operations?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Battery-powered light rail train could be tested in Greater Victoria

A private sector partnership in British Columbia and the United Kingdom are hoping to initiate a proof-of-concept test of a new type of rail public transit service in the Greater Victoria region...

... The respective City Councils of Colwood and View Royal — suburban cities that share a municipal border, located west of Victoria Inner Harbour — endorsed the proposal in principle, and directed City staff to work with their municipal counterparts in the region to identify a potential route...

... First of all, according to the proponents, it would use a battery-powered train that can be charged in about 10 minutes. Conversely, most conventional light rail transit (LRT) systems that run at street level depend on overhead catenary wires for its electrical supply or they use diesel engines.

Secondly, this would be an ultra LRT — ultra light rail transit (ULRT). It is a “new breed” on the hierarchy of passenger rail systems...

...Conversely, ULRT has a lower capacity range than LRT, akin to a streetcar, carrying between 56 and 200 passengers...

... These train vehicles could potentially travel up to 90 km/hr, but such systems that are not fully grade separated and run through traffic points usually follow road speed limits, which was the case of TransLink’s cancelled Surrey-Newton LRT with its maximum opoerating speed of 50 km/hr...

... It is noted that the Vancouver Island (E&N) corridor will not be considered. Earlier this year, the provincial government committed $18 million to study ways the corridor can be enhanced for transportation uses over the long term.

Lead proponent Stephen Kong of Vancouver-based ThinkEco Power Systems told Daily Hive Urbanized the Greater Victoria project is envisioned to be a four-stage project.

It would begin with a feasibility study with public consultation, followed by the creation of a two to three km long high-speed track to evaluate the robustness of the track and create a more accurate cost estimate. The track could then be extended to serve between Langford and towards downtown Victoria, before being used for fare-paying passengers...

...The feasibility stage and pilot project of up to three km is expected to take one year to complete.

If all goes as planned, the train could be running in certain sections as early as by late Fall 2024...

...When asked whether such a system could be piloted in Vancouver by reactivating the Olympic Line streetcar route that operated during the 2010 Winter Games between SkyTrain Olympic Village Station and Granville Island, Kong says his group would certainly be willing to explore this opportunity...

On one hand, no caternaries would probably save a fair amount of money. On the other, 50-200 passengers makes it even more of a very expensive RapidBus.

[MIPS]

I see AGU has at some point recently refreshed their site and now have a section devoted to the U1.

http://www.agu.at/de/stationsbau/wien-u1/

Considering this was where all of the Expo Line stations got their design inspiration from (remember, AGU designed them and the modular components as well for us) I really like how they have managed to maintain that style even with multiple extensions to the line, with their newest stations still sharing a lot of inspiration from the original segment.

I'm trying to imagine what it would of looked like if BC Transit and later TransLink (with their respective funding) had stuck with AGU for the extension of the Expo Line and every station built since then. We've changed the style so many times now it's kind of ugly. It's indecisive. It doesn't want have any one style for long and that's not a good thing because now we have stations with at least three generations of additions stapled on and each have their own style.

[cganuelas1995]

Here's a sloppy diagram of a reconfiguration of Commercial-Broadway station, now you don't have to walk very far to change lines

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ndynU8fbHaBhO0PgOltj7KZWEzNf_gM&usp=sharing

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Battery-powered light rail train could be tested in Greater Victoria



On one hand, no caternaries would probably save a fair amount of money. On the other, 50-200 passengers makes it even more of a very expensive RapidBus.

Pretty much. The reason why Light Rail systems are failures has nothing to do with the "rail" part, and everything to do with the unprotected right of way. As long as it's not elevated or underground, it will not have the frequency necessary to succeed, and if it runs at road grade, it may as well be a (trolley/battery) bus because the performance is the same as one.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Pretty much. The reason why Light Rail systems are failures has nothing to do with the "rail" part, and everything to do with the unprotected right of way. As long as it's not elevated or underground, it will not have the frequency necessary to succeed, and if it runs at road grade, it may as well be a (trolley/battery) bus because the performance is the same as one.

Yeah I'd say anything that mixes with traffic should have flexibility

[chowhou]

RMTransit transit fantasy just dropped.

• Video Link

[Migrant_Coconut]

He's technically not wrong... but definitely not right.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

RMTransit transit fantasy just dropped.

What I like about his plan:

• Expanding the Canada line platforms to 80 metres when we get around to doing so circa 2040s. Would allow us to either run 4 car trains or gradually add multiple middle sections for each train.
• The high speed limited stop express line from South of Fraser into Vancouver.
• Acknowledging that we're not nearly ambitious enough currently.
• Acknowledging that BRT doesn't make sense in a high cost of labour area and that Rapidbus fits higher-order bus service perfectly, I agree that if more capacity is needed it should become a Skytrain route.

What I dislike about his plan:

• Don't love the alignment of the Fraser Line, like the concept but I would say a straight shot from Central Surrey via Highway 1 corridor and the Grandview Cut makes the most sense, diving across Burnaby to Metrotown and down Kingsway adds unnecessary time and cost. The Surrey Central to Metrotown commute on the Expo Line is only 20 minutes, this wouldn't add much value.
• Stanley line has an odd orientation twisting around downtown, and having that short branch between Stanley Park and Waterfront along with the eventual extension down Knight Street is kind of like having two different lines. I do think the West End needs better rapid transit access but this isn't it imo.
• Extending the Expo Line from Waterfront along Hastings. Personally I think a separate Hastings line that goes into the West End (and across the water serving Senakw, Kits, and acting as a relief line to the Canada Line connecting at Arbutus) is a better choice. Also having intra operability between it and the inlet line with half of the trains serving Hastings - Metrotown and half serving Hastings - North Shore would better serve the region (effectively the Gold line from INSTPP).
• Not extending the 41st/49th ave rapid transit corridor west of Oakridge.
• Besides the Fraser Line it seems like Surrey was ignored. Eventually ridership growth on Rapidbus lines should justify another Skytrain alignment south of Fraser.

[madog222]

80m platforms on the Canada Line and 120m on the Expo line are not really a option (while maintaining platform grade standards at least), that would mean rebuilding large sections of the guideway. Ignoring the viability of interrupting service, that's money better spend on other lines.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by mcj

What I like about his plan:

What I dislike about his plan:

I also liked the removal of the the Expo line branching to Production Way. That is a small change but necessary as Expo goes farther and farther into the Valley.

I am not sure about BRT. It seems like a relatively cheap interim step between rapid bus and rail. And a couple of the lines seem like 10-20 stop-gap solutions until Translink can fund and build new Skytrain lines on Hastings, KGB, Willingdon, and Marine. There were only a handful of BRT routes mentioned in Transport 2050 that do not seem to be priorities for Skytrain (Lougheed Hwy, Scott Road, and Knight/Victoria between Richmond and Metrotown).

I agree that there was not nearly enough transit SoF. Scott Road/120, 200 between Langley and Pitt Meadows, and 64 between Newton and Langley are some additional candidates for rail. The density — in those places though. Richmond could also use a south extension of the Canada Line.

For his Fraser line I would only build the White Rock / Guildford portions and ignore the express service. If we need express service for Surrey, Langley, and beyond, regional rail is the better solution and hopefully could be trojan horsed into a HSR project.

I agree the Arbutus and Stanley lines are trying to do too many things at once. Whether Arbutus should be built south of 12th is questionable given the lack of density, but running any line along SW and SE Marine is questionable to me. With the car-centric and industrial uses along the Fraser, I don't know if there is a lot of east/west travel demand there that can't be better served by 41st/49th. For Stanley, I would start the line at Yaletown, follow Davie, turn at Denman, and turn at Hastings where the line can continue past Waterfront all the way to an interchange with the Willingdon line.

While BRT on Knight makes sense since the bus needs a bridge, I don't think there is any reason to run a north/south train line under Knight. If another north/south line is needed between Cambie and Willingdon, it should go under Victoria which is already full of mid-rise residential and attractive commercial strips. That line could continue under Commercial and would provide transfers to 41/49, Expo, Millennium, and Hastings.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I don't hate the Kingsway relief line, but it just doesn't start or end anywhere useful; might be better to make that one cover Denman/Davie/Yaletown and Stanley Park instead of the others. And merging it with SNG definitely feels like an afterthought when it could be replacing the R6 or something like that.

Bridgeport Road has an IKEA. That's it. We'd be better off finding a way to have the YVR Branch act like a shuttle to/from the main Canada Line, and then the Richmond branch can get 100% capacity like it should be having now.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by chowhou

RMTransit transit fantasy just dropped.

• Video Link

Hats off to Reece Martin. His knowledge of transit is extensive and thorough, and his ideas are comprehensive, showing his ability to "think big." He is not only a valuable SSP member, a forward thinker, a visionary whose ideas will be be instrumental in the future development of rrt here in Vancouver, and in other cities, too. Go Reece!