Arbutus: Greenway & Future Streetcar | Proposed

[Galaxy]

What they could do down the road say 10-30 years and or when every the money makes sense would be to build a line underground using Skytrain technology and then it would create a second north/south line there for Translink could run the lines in a way where the Skytrain at least North/South runs 24/7 with either existing Canada Line and the Arbutus Line closed alternating so maintenance can happen.

[Migrant_Coconut]

(Caution: dead horse being beaten)

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, the 16 Line goes to Renfrew and Hastings St. as well. That skews Ridership density a lot. Do you have numbers for the Arbutus section only?

Remember that the tram would cover everything south of West 4th... and possibly False Creek, NEFC/Chinatown/Gastown and Waterfront if linked to the downtown streetcar ROW, which looks like a given.

No numbers for actual density, but last year's TSPR gives me about 2,300 boardings and 4,700 alightings MtF southbound from the Granville Loop; I'm going to cop out and assume that northbound to Burrard is the same, meaning 14,000-ish riders between Kits-Fairview and Marpole. Not including another 4k-5k from the #50, or induced demand from a faster, more frequent off-road route.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I doubt it'll alleviate the Canada Line enough to justify the cost and effort. Realistically, only people from the west of Granville going to Richmond or YVR (or transferring to some bus line in Marpole or Bridgeway) would want to use it.

(My estimates above did not account for slowdowns near stations or stopping due to delays or to yield to traffic, so it's probably more like 15-16 min. Better than buses, but worse than Canada Line.) Reducing that number with better speed makes it increasingly more like commuter rail, not streetcar/LRT.

I dunno, Toronto's Eglinton is pegged at 28 km/h every three minutes with full traffic delay, but few people would call it commuter rail. I think Vancouverites will settle for 25-26 every five.

What's nice about the Greenway is that it's an ex-railway corridor. The ROW, being designed to handle heavy rail, has very few intersections and is well separated from the road. Minimize the remaining track conflicts, and you've got a solid secondary RT with the Millennium/Canada/Expo as the backbone.
Think of it as four souped-up feeder lines, rather than one express line; Marpole to Broadway, Broadway to Olympic Village, OV to Main Street/Science World, Main to Waterfront. If you've got a start or end point in-between, and aren't in that big a hurry, one continuous trip may be more appealing than two or more SkyTrain/bus transfers.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What they could do down the road say 10-30 years and or when every the money makes sense would be to build a line underground using Skytrain technology and then it would create a second north/south line there for Translink could run the lines in a way where the Skytrain at least North/South runs 24/7 with either existing Canada Line and the Arbutus Line closed alternating so maintenance can happen.

But they'd be busy trying to fund all the other needed SkyTrain lines.

Unlike the other bass-awkwards surface rail proposals, there's no utilities to move or road to rip up, so an Arbutus tram would be cheaper to build. If the open house planners are correct, capital cost would be $400M or less; should be able to squeeze it into one of the upcoming 10 Year Plans as a side project. And as mentioned above, there's minimal traffic conflicts, so it'd also be better able to retain speed and frequency.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

(Caution: dead horse being beaten)



Remember that the tram would cover everything south of West 4th... and possibly False Creek, NEFC/Chinatown/Gastown and Waterfront if linked to the downtown streetcar ROW, which looks like a given.

No numbers for actual density, but last year's TSPR gives me about 2,300 boardings and 4,700 alightings MtF southbound from the Granville Loop; I'm going to cop out and assume that northbound to Burrard is the same, meaning 14,000-ish riders between Kits-Fairview and Marpole. Not including another 4k-5k from the #50, or induced demand from a faster, more frequent off-road route.



I dunno, Toronto's Eglinton is pegged at 28 km/h every three minutes with full traffic delay, but few people would call it commuter rail. I think Vancouverites will settle for 25-26 every five.

What's nice about the Greenway is that it's an ex-railway corridor. The ROW, being designed to handle heavy rail, has very few intersections and is well separated from the road. Minimize the remaining track conflicts, and you've got a solid secondary RT with the Millennium/Canada/Expo as the backbone.
Think of it as four souped-up feeder lines, rather than one express line; Marpole to Broadway, Broadway to Olympic Village, OV to Main Street/Science World, Main to Waterfront. If you've got a start or end point in-between, and aren't in that big a hurry, one continuous trip may be more appealing than two or more SkyTrain/bus transfers.



But they'd be busy trying to fund all the other needed SkyTrain lines.

Unlike the other bass-awkwards surface rail proposals, there's no utilities to move or road to rip up, so an Arbutus tram would be cheaper to build. If the open house planners are correct, capital cost would be $400M or less; should be able to squeeze it into one of the upcoming 10 Year Plans as a side project. And as mentioned above, there's minimal traffic conflicts, so it'd also be better able to retain speed and frequency.

Plus it could potentially go further east along the Fraser to the River District and beyond. Withe very minimal level crossings. It's a great corridor for a future streetcar.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

(Caution: dead horse being beaten)



Remember that the tram would cover everything south of West 4th... and possibly False Creek, NEFC/Chinatown/Gastown and Waterfront if linked to the downtown streetcar ROW, which looks like a given.

Well, true- that would be one of the major advantages of using LRT rather than a faster system.

Though, really, most of the areas served are already served by Skytrain- and the LRT would only really provide extra capacity over buses.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I dunno, Toronto's Eglinton is pegged at 28 km/h every three minutes with full traffic delay, but few people would call it commuter rail. I think Vancouverites will settle for 25-26 every five.

What's nice about the Greenway is that it's an ex-railway corridor. The ROW, being designed to handle heavy rail, has very few intersections and is well separated from the road. Minimize the remaining track conflicts, and you've got a solid secondary RT with the Millennium/Canada/Expo as the backbone.
Think of it as four souped-up feeder lines, rather than one express line; Marpole to Broadway, Broadway to Olympic Village, OV to Main Street/Science World, Main to Waterfront. If you've got a start or end point in-between, and aren't in that big a hurry, one continuous trip may be more appealing than two or more SkyTrain/bus transfers.

True.- My issue is that with LRT-style speed and ROW (without spending money on overpasses over the intersections there are), it's only that- a feeder line.

My issue is that people are acting like it'd be an effective 'overflow' for the Canada Line. However, my assertion is that unless you go full commuter rail and upgrade the corridor to accommodate it, it wouldn't actually be much an overflow, limiting demand (and raison d'etre).

It'd always be end up being secondary to the Canada Line; it'd be a local rail boulevard, not a mass transit line, and would end up not solving any overcrowding issues on the Canada due to slow relative speed.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Think of it as four souped-up feeder lines, rather than one express line; Marpole to Broadway, Broadway to Olympic Village, OV to Main Street/Science World, Main to Waterfront. If you've got a start or end point in-between, and aren't in that big a hurry, one continuous trip may be more appealing than two or more SkyTrain/bus transfers.

But they'd be busy trying to fund all the other needed SkyTrain lines.

Unlike the other bass-awkwards surface rail proposals, there's no utilities to move or road to rip up, so an Arbutus tram would be cheaper to build. If the open house planners are correct, capital cost would be $400M or less; should be able to squeeze it into one of the upcoming 10 Year Plans as a side project. And as mentioned above, there's minimal traffic conflicts, so it'd also be better able to retain speed and frequency.

Don't forget Stanley Park, specifically the Aquarium. That parking lot is already overfull pretty much every weekend, and parking is expensive. Demand is certainly there.

As for the cost, I recall the NPA in 2011 (get your wayback hat on), proposed The Science World to Granville Island section at $60M capital cost. That's why it was feasible even for Vancouver to pay for it directly. The real reason to involve Translink is for system integration.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Though, really, most of the areas served are already served by Skytrain- and the LRT would only really provide extra capacity over buses.

Well yeah - the main argument is that in this one case, it's bigger/prettier than a B-Line or BRT, and as cheap, and actually useful in terms of speed and capacity.

Originally Posted by fredinno

True.- My issue is that with LRT-style speed and ROW (without spending money on overpasses over the intersections there are), it's only that- a feeder line.

My issue is that people are acting like it'd be an effective 'overflow' for the Canada Line. However, my assertion is that unless you go full commuter rail and upgrade the corridor to accommodate it, it wouldn't actually be much an overflow, limiting demand (and raison d'etre).

It'd always be end up being secondary to the Canada Line; it'd be a local rail boulevard, not a mass transit line, and would end up not solving any overcrowding issues on the Canada due to slow relative speed.

Not really. All that's required for 25-26 km/h average speed (50-70 top?) is a couple of over/underpasses at key junctions like Broadway or 41st; the rest can either be closed entirely or given a set of crossing barriers. It's not SkyTrain rapid, but it's rapid.

Of course, the Canada will definitely always be the better option for express trips. But having a secondary route for local/semi-express trips would take a lot of pressure off it, yes?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Don't forget Stanley Park, specifically the Aquarium. That parking lot is already overfull pretty much every weekend, and parking is expensive. Demand is certainly there.

As for the cost, I recall the NPA in 2011 (get your wayback hat on), proposed The Science World to Granville Island section at $60M capital cost. That's why it was feasible even for Vancouver to pay for it directly. The real reason to involve Translink is for system integration.

Very true, but there's no way to Stanley Park after Waterfront without either tunnelling or shoving through Georgia and Devonian Harbour; either one would be another unpleasant political football.
Let's start simple, like taking over part of Quebec and the Science World parking lot (/s).

Sounds about right. Laying track inside a road is expensive, but the track on its own is cheap.

Honest question - was there ever a chance that Vancouver would operate it independent from TransLink? They appear to have enough on their plate without creating a completely new miniature TransLink just for the tram.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Of course, the Canada will definitely always be the better option for express trips. But having a secondary route for local/semi-express trips would take a lot of pressure off it, yes?

That's kind of my feeling on it too. I feel like it would be well used by the folks living in the area as this one-specific design would be transit that people can depend on. My only question is where would the maintenance garage would be...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scryer

That's kind of my feeling on it too. I feel like it would be well used by the folks living in the area as this one-specific design would be transit that people can depend on. My only question is where would the maintenance garage would be...

False Creek Flats? Plenty of space, and there's already empty Standard Gauge tracks.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Very true, but there's no way to Stanley Park after Waterfront without either tunnelling or shoving through Georgia and Devonian Harbour; either one would be another unpleasant political football.
Let's start simple, like taking over part of Quebec and the Science World parking lot (/s).

Sounds about right. Laying track inside a road is expensive, but the track on its own is cheap.

Honest question - was there ever a chance that Vancouver would operate it independent from TransLink? They appear to have enough on their plate without creating a completely new miniature TransLink just for the tram.

I haven't looked at the routing that would be necessary to get to Stanley Park, I just assumed there might be some road sharing with traffic, as it the case for the trolley bus loop that is there today.

This was a bona fide plan by the NPA, or a last ditch chance for Anton to be mayor, you decide.

As for operating, the city might as well make it free for all the trouble it would be to set up infrastructure. They could pay for ongoing costs with the empty home tax.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well yeah - the main argument is that in this one case, it's bigger/prettier than a B-Line or BRT, and as cheap, and actually useful in terms of speed and capacity.



Not really. All that's required for 25-26 km/h average speed (50-70 top?) is a couple of over/underpasses at key junctions like Broadway or 41st; the rest can either be closed entirely or given a set of crossing barriers. It's not SkyTrain rapid, but it's rapid.

Of course, the Canada will definitely always be the better option for express trips. But having a secondary route for local/semi-express trips would take a lot of pressure off it, yes?

Yes.

I'd still believe more 'express' options for Canada Line relief would provide a better cost/benefit ratio to commuters not living in Point Grey/Shaughnessy (commuter Rail on Artubus, Canada Line Bored Twinned Tunnel).

I can see the reasoning; I just don't think it's worth it. And I feel like that will pretty much doom the idea to remain on the drawing board; there's just too much else that needs to be done first, and when we really need to expand the Canada Line, LRT on Artubus won't be enough.



That's probably about how far this discussion will ever go, so let's end it here, on a good note.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I haven't looked at the routing that would be necessary to get to Stanley Park, I just assumed there might be some road sharing with traffic, as it the case for the trolley bus loop that is there today.

This was a bona fide plan by the NPA, or a last ditch chance for Anton to be mayor, you decide.

As for operating, the city might as well make it free for all the trouble it would be to set up infrastructure. They could pay for ongoing costs with the empty home tax.

Has the Vancouver/Downtown/Arbutus Streetcar idea gone really anywhere in the last decade or two?

It seems like one of those things where everyone makes concepts and drawings, but everyone just says, "Maybe later," for years, until everyone eventually forgets about it?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Has the Vancouver/Downtown/Arbutus Streetcar idea gone really anywhere in the last decade or two?

It seems like one of those things where everyone makes concepts and drawings, but everyone just says, "Maybe later," for years, until everyone eventually forgets about it?

Well, the ROW has been set aside for the route from OV to Science World, and through Yaletown. And of course the Arbutus line was purchased.

Gregor was on record saying he supported it but wanted all of his focus to be on the Broadway Subway (fair). It didn't make the Mayors' 10 year plan though, which is disappointing.

If the capital cost can be worked into the NEFC redevelopment that would be great. If the ROW doesn't even exist in that plan, then it's probably dead for a generation.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, the ROW has been set aside for the route from OV to Science World, and through Yaletown. And of course the Arbutus line was purchased.

Gregor was on record saying he supported it but wanted all of his focus to be on the Broadway Subway (fair). It didn't make the Mayors' 10 year plan though, which is disappointing.

If the capital cost can be worked into the NEFC redevelopment that would be great. If the ROW doesn't even exist in that plan, then it's probably dead for a generation.

The Streetcar is a footnote in the NEFC plan:
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/north...creek-plan.pdf

Streets will be designed to be seismically resilient and accommodate future changes to infrastructure, transportation options (e.g. future streetcar), climate change and rising sea levels.

Ensure street design is resilient to allow for a range of transit technologies including frequent bus services and future streetcar technologies.

- relating to the new 8-lane Pacific Blvd.


So... I guess?
It still seems to be not really be a priority; none of the renders show anything related to streetcar, so it'd have to be taken from car lanes later on.

Is there ROW through the Waterfront section?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The Streetcar is a footnote in the NEFC plan:
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/north...creek-plan.pdf


- relating to the new 8-lane Pacific Blvd.


So... I guess?
It still seems to be not really be a priority; none of the renders show anything related to streetcar, so it'd have to be taken from car lanes later on.

Is there ROW through the Waterfront section?

No ROW in Waterfront. Depending on the alignment I can see it just running in car lanes along Water St, possibly even removing car traffic. Which would be ok IMO.

My feeling is it should really focus on tourist areas. Waterfront, but also running by the cruise ship terminal and convention centre.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No ROW in Waterfront. Depending on the alignment I can see it just running in car lanes along Water St, possibly even removing car traffic. Which would be ok IMO.

My feeling is it should really focus on tourist areas. Waterfront, but also running by the cruise ship terminal and convention centre.

Let's come back here in 10 years and see how far the streetcar has gotten .

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

...an Arbutus tram would be cheaper to build. If the open house planners are correct, capital cost would be $400M or less; should be able to squeeze it into one of the upcoming 10 Year Plans as a side project.

A waste of $400M, IMHO. Everyone seems to be salivating at what a wonderful project the right of way will make while completely ignoring the complete lack of need for that kind of service in the corridor. It's being more than adequately by trolleys, and they're not even at the point where they need to use articulated units. Let's not spend money just because we can, let's spend it on something that's more sorely needed - there's certainly no lack of such projects.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

A waste of $400M, IMHO. Everyone seems to be salivating at what a wonderful project the right of way will make while completely ignoring the complete lack of need for that kind of service in the corridor. It's being more than adequately by trolleys, and they're not even at the point where they need to use articulated units. Let's not spend money just because we can, let's spend it on something that's more sorely needed - there's certainly no lack of such projects.

BRT from Newton to White Rock was estimated at $300M. The LRT'd still be pricey, but it wouldn't be a ripoff like Surrey's.

Now if the question were "do we need either one for Arbutus yet," that's a worthy discussion.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

BRT from Newton to White Rock was estimated at $300M. The LRT'd still be pricey, but it wouldn't be a ripoff like Surrey's.

Now if the question were "do we need either one for Arbutus yet," that's a worthy discussion.

Any realistic (Translink) study of LRT on Arbutus should first be done after building a B-line on the route, as usual.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Any realistic (Translink) study of LRT on Arbutus should first be done after building a B-line on the route, as usual.

Yes, and the B-Line should be introduced when it's needed - not before.