North Shore Updates

[logan5]

Since that huge ICBC building is being redeveloped, there's an opportunity to redesign how the Sea bus and regular buses integrate. You could bring the bus loop much closer to the seabus dock - create one large fare paid zone that allow a seamless, much quicker transfer. That would open up the opportunity to possibly expand Lonsdale Quay, or at least build on that retail cluster, create plaza space along Esplanade that leads to an expansive retail area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The concourse between the two is also a public space. There'll be pedestrians passing from one end to the other who shouldn't need to go through or around a fare zone.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The concourse between the two is also a public space. There'll be pedestrians passing from one end to the other who shouldn't need to go through or around a fare zone.

There's 2 smaller buildings immediately north of the seabus dock that would have to become part of the redevelopment, but that is a minor detail. Nobody would have to go through a fare zone.

Maybe the seabus dock could be rebuilt altogether, with the seabus doors opening up right into the bus loop. Obviously you would need to build a temporary dock for that.

[Migrant_Coconut]

"Temporary dock?" This is starting to sound like a solution in search of a problem - it's literally just a thirty-second walk from the alighting stop to the SeaBus.

[chowhou]

I've never heard of any transit system that fenced in bus loops as fare-paid zones. Are there any examples of that in the world?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I've never heard of any transit system that fenced in bus loops as fare-paid zones. Are there any examples of that in the world?

In Toronto, some of the direct transfer (from subway) streetcar loops are fenced in like that.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

In Toronto, some of the direct transfer (from subway) streetcar loops are fenced in like that.

Streetcars are a bit difference since they have platforms, I wouldn't call that a bus loop.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

"Temporary dock?" This is starting to sound like a solution in search of a problem - it's literally just a thirty-second walk from the alighting stop to the SeaBus.

You maybe missed the above posts. The bus loop is going to be redeveloped, so it makes sense to look at how this large transit hub should work. There is an opportunity to improve things.

What I'm suggesting is not pie in the sky. It's easily something that can be accomplished. This is an urban design forum, so we discuss ways to improve urban design, you explore different ideas. Just an FYI.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I've never heard of any transit system that fenced in bus loops as fare-paid zones. Are there any examples of that in the world?

Even if it doesn't exist, who cares if it's something that improves the commuting experience and improves the public realm for Lower Lonsdale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

You maybe missed the above posts. The bus loop is going to be redeveloped, so it makes sense to look at how this large transit hub should work. There is an opportunity to improve things.

This is an urban design forum, so we discuss ways to improve urban design. Just an FYI.

Originally Posted by logan5

Even if it doesn't exist, who cares if it's something that improves the commuting experience and improves the public realm for Lower Lonsdale.

Redeveloping =/= shutting down both the bus loop and dock for an 0.001% "improvement" that will actually be detrimental for several current users. Since you're an expert on how this forum works, you'll know that your options are A) explain it further and convince us, possibly with an image (and maybe move this to the Fantasy thread if so), B) give it up, or C) expect further pushback.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Redeveloping =/= shutting down both the bus loop and dock for an 0.001% "improvement" that will actually be detrimental for several current users. Since you're an expert on how this forum works, you'll know that your options are A) explain it further and convince us, possibly with an image (and maybe move this to the Fantasy thread if so), B) give it up, or C) expect further pushback.

Once again, you have to relocate the bus loop when the ICBC building gets torn down and redeveloped. The bus loop is going to be completely rebuilt anyways, so it makes sense to look for ways to improve things.

You would put the bus loop right back where it is? How would it be detrimental to relocate the bus loop closer to the seabus terminal?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

Once again, you have to relocate the bus loop when the ICBC building gets torn down and redeveloped. The bus loop is going to be completely rebuilt anyways, so it makes sense to look for ways to improve things.

You would put the bus loop right back where it is?

If you'd been to the North Shore within the last five years, you'd know there's already a loop at Chadwick Court, which TransLink used as a temp for the last renovation (during the lockdown).

Literally nobody wants or needs the existing pedestrian concourse ripped up - and the SeaBus terminal shut down for months - in favour of a 4,800+ square metre pedestrian-inaccessible asphalt lot (and yes, the buses do need the majority of that space; Lonsdale Exchange is already smaller than Phibbs) whose sole purpose is to save passengers twenty seconds of walking per trip.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by logan5

Even if it doesn't exist, who cares if it's something that improves the commuting experience and improves the public realm for Lower Lonsdale.

Conceptually speaking, there's merit in your idea. However, in this particular situation, the redevelopment of one building won't be enough to address issues caused by a very compact multi-use space. Road access to the area is significantly limited by the pedestrian-oriented lower portion of Lonsdale Avenue and Carrie Cates Court, not to mention the railway tunnel emerging at Chesterfield. The waterfront pedestrian cross-traffic still has to go somewhere; if you move the bus loop closer to the SeaBus terminal, those people will have to cross transit roads instead of sidewalks. You could potentially move the buses out of the way by elevating the loop - with access from Esplanade instead of Carrie Cates - but then you need stairs and escalators to get down to the SeaBus. Another solution might be adding a pedestrian underpass - similar to the one further west on the Spirit Trail - for cross-traffic.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

... You could potentially move the buses out of the way by elevating the loop - with access from Esplanade instead of Carrie Cates - but then you need stairs and escalators to get down to the SeaBus. Another solution might be adding a pedestrian underpass - similar to the one further west on the Spirit Trail - for cross-traffic.

Now that might work, but then you've got the headache of building and running a bus loop on the "second floor" throughout the entire lot... and it's not really a net improvement for bus/SeaBus passengers over the existing loop.

[jollyburger]

My fantasy idea was to redevelop Waterfront Park and then use the ICBC land as a new park and if needed some kind of public space or housing. I wonder if the First Nations plans for the marina could involve filling in where most of the current docks are situated with new housing.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Streetcars are a bit difference since they have platforms, I wouldn't call that a bus loop.

At Bathurst Station, for example, it's a combination streetcar and bus loop.
Entry is through the stationhouse (from street or up from the subway platforms below).

You can see the short fence and Do Not Enter (subject to fine) signs:

https://www.google.com/maps?sca_esv=...00715&ictx=111


https://www.google.com/maps?sca_esv=...00715&ictx=111


https://www.google.com/maps?sca_esv=...00715&ictx=111

At the newer Highway 407 Station bus terminal, you can see from the aerial photo, that again,
access to the bus terminal is through the subway station.
The subway station entrance is on a lower level than the bus terminal.


https://www.canadianarchitect.com/ri...07-station-03/

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

At Bathurst Station, for example, it's a combination streetcar and bus loop.
Entry is through the stationhouse (from street or up from the subway platforms below).

Very interesting! Thanks for the example.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Very interesting! Thanks for the example.

I think it's basically so people don't get run over by buses.

TTC's model is often an island platform that is difficult to access except from a grade-separated bridge or tunnel
(or an island that abuts the street allowing access from one end through the station entrance).

I think they also assume that the majority of passengers will be transferring from the subway
instead of entering from the street to take a bus.

Here's a Crosstown LRT station entrance (LRT is underground) and bus terminal entrance rendering.
Note the fence to the side of the station entrance blocking people from going directly to the buses.


https://skyrisecities.com/database/p...-station.32024

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Conceptually speaking, there's merit in your idea. However, in this particular situation, the redevelopment of one building won't be enough to address issues caused by a very compact multi-use space. Road access to the area is significantly limited by the pedestrian-oriented lower portion of Lonsdale Avenue and Carrie Cates Court, not to mention the railway tunnel emerging at Chesterfield. The waterfront pedestrian cross-traffic still has to go somewhere; if you move the bus loop closer to the SeaBus terminal, those people will have to cross transit roads instead of sidewalks. You could potentially move the buses out of the way by elevating the loop - with access from Esplanade instead of Carrie Cates - but then you need stairs and escalators to get down to the SeaBus. Another solution might be adding a pedestrian underpass - similar to the one further west on the Spirit Trail - for cross-traffic.

My plan is contingent upon the redevelopment of the 2 smaller buildings nestled between the seabus terminal and the ICBC building, then you could build a new bus loop where the 2 smaller buildings were, plus some. That's a more seamless integration of the 2 modes.

The former bus loop area could then become a retail area to expand the already existing Lonsdale Quay retail space. This would activate Esplanade, as it would bring a plaza and retail right to the street. There is just a blank wall there now

People exiting the seabus terminal, if they are not transferring to a bus, would only need cross a bus loop street, then enter a pleasant underground retail area to get Esplanade. Buses can enter from Chesterfield/Chadwick.

What I'm proposing is minor in the context of this huge project.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by logan5

My plan is contingent upon the redevelopment of the 2 smaller buildings nestled between the seabus terminal and the ICBC building, then you could build a new bus loop where the 2 smaller buildings were, plus some. That's a more seamless integration of the 2 modes.

The former bus loop area could then become a retail area to expand the already existing Lonsdale Quay retail space. This would activate Esplanade, as it would bring a plaza and retail right to the street. There is just a blank wall there now

People exiting the seabus terminal, if they are not transferring to a bus, would only need cross a bus loop street, then enter a pleasant underground retail area to get Esplanade. Buses can enter from Chesterfield/Chadwick.

What I'm proposing is minor in the context of this huge project.

Again, what you're proposing would only marginally reduce the distance from the bus loop to the SeaBus station while greatly increasing pedestrian-vehicle interactions. It's not just north-south transit users, there's the steady stream of pedestrians moving east-west; the transit road would clash with travel between Lonsdale Quay and Waterfront Park. I'd imagine that TransLink would also be loathe to increase reliance on Chesterfield and its rail crossing; that's probably the reason that most bus traffic goes up Rogers instead of Chesterfield.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not opposed to your idea of improving access in principle. It's just that, based on my experiences in that area and my familiarity with the local roads and pedestrian routes, I don't think your proposal would work in that location.