Transit Fantasies

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I have....bus fantasies



1) The 23 Brentwood/Beach

On the East End, run the 23 (with conventional buses) east from Main Street Station along Terminal 1st Avenue, and looping via Douglas and Halifax through Brentwood to offer a direct East - West connection through fairly populous and high ridership areas, while relieving the busiest segment of the Expo Line, and improving transit access to False Creek Flats

On the West End, run the 23 through to Second Beach, increasing recreational access to Stanley Park. You could construct a small turning facility in the parking lots



2) The 7 Musqueam

It would be a relatively trivial amount of trolley wire to extend the 7 down Dunbar and over into Musqueam (about 2.5 km) but would considerably increase transit access to Musqueam residents with a direct route downtown and quick connections to crosstown routes on 49th and 41st. The route could terminal looping around the Musqueam Cultural Centre by way of Musquam Avenue and Mali Avenue. The area is certainly not the richest, and would likely have fairly high ridership for the population.


3) The 9 to Gilmore or Brentwood

Boundary Loop's concrete by the highway overpass is simply a bad place to terminate a bus, and if it weren't for trolley wire terminating there due to the sparseness of 1950s Burnaby, it would have been extended to a more natural terminus long ago. It's just another 1-2 kilometers of trolley wire, similar to the extension of the Kingsway wires to Metrotown when the Expo Line opened, and with trolley-hater Corrigan gone in Burnaby it might even be politically viable now.

I have a bus fantasy too. Run the 562 on 88 and Glover only instead of curving around a billion times through suburbia. I'll gladly walk 10 extra minutes. It's insane how long that bus takes.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

But that argument only extends so far, otherwise people would still be shouting down the Broadway extension. "Why should Vancouver get another SkyTrain when (insert suburb here) doesn't even have one, huh?" - you saw one of those types in almost every comment section back in the early 2010s. The answer is the same: if we increase capacity on the outskirts before increasing capacity in the centre, all we're doing is shifting the bottleneck further up the line.

If we build waves' Lonsdale line first, we're going to see bottlenecks on the Expo and the 95/R5; Port Coq first, the Expo and the Millennium. Commercial-Broadway will very likely resemble a Tokyo train either way.

Not to mention that Hastings is likely to become the new Broadway with the densest express bus routes - TransLink will point at the 95/R5 ridership, point at North Van/Port Coq/White Rock's ridership, and rest their case. As somebody who would directly benefit from both a Lonsdale and a Marine SkyTrain, Hastings should go first.



Commuters (drivers and riders) got dinged just as much by cut n' cover as businesses did. Nobody wants a repeat of that - even more so, because there's TransCanada traffic too.

More likely is that TransLink will have control of all route planning and construction. The City knows that they're best at providing the space, and then getting out of the way.

Well, considering the City is moving without the city and TransLink doesn't seem to care, I'd be skeptical on that.

A temporary inconvenience for greater benefit is kind of Infrastructure 101. It's a shame if we really can't just go cut-and-cover on major roads anymore. I'd argue it's still worth it to try, for the $800M to $1B, but we've hit a standstill, and it's probably pointless to continue.
Would cut and cover on side roads be ok? Not exactly feasible here, but maybe elsewhere.

95B/Hastings is approx 2/5ths of the 99B's riderhip. Unlikely to be serious problems there for at least the next 2-3 decades, as the 99B's ridership increased ~30.5% since 1998.
Meaning that it might take ~5 decades until we actually hit capacity on the buses on Hastings.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tran...ship-data-2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_B-Line#History

The only realistic possibility is congestion on the Expo, which is partially mitigated by the Broadway Extension (no longer have to go to DT to get to the Canada).
Hastings could serve as a relief line if it turned south. At that point, you're talking a ~$4B project to get a bored tunnel to Gilmore/Brentwood. The problem is that the vast majority of the demand from Main St to Commerical-Broadway actually is coming from the Expo (not Millennium) side of things, so how useful that'd be is up to question. Going all the way to the Expo seems to be of limited usefulness due to the distance being ~1.86 km longer than the Expo Route.

Yes, and TransLink placated the suburban people by moving some money to the SoF extensions simultaneously. If TransLink earmarked the entire Ph1+2 SoF money to getting to UBC instead (as it would logically be- I know they technically don't have all the money yet, but it's not like the boring machine is going to arrive at Arbutus all that quickly- they'd have time to get the remaining Ph2 funds) they'd be fuming and suburbanites would be just as pissed with TransLink as in the early 2010s.
They moved money from a project that would be more important from your perspective, into a suburban line that ends in (admittedly) the edge of the city.

Langley, BTW would increase the demand by 3600pphd at the most congested point over Best Bus. Skytrain to Newton, 1870pphpd. Both by 2041.

Maybe. But since Hastings would be limited as a relief line (even Toronto's (original) DRL was pretty limited in effectiveness and would only provide temporary relief of 5900phpd, which considering the greater size of Toronto... (https://stevemunro.ca/2016/06/27/tor...v-relief-line/), so this isn't unique), you'd still have that problem no matter what you do. The only way to solve the Expo congestion problem ultimately is probably to expand the Expo itself. Easier said than done, and the money would suck any left for Hastings.
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...%20Summary.pdf
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...Evaluation.pdf
Note also the new ridership will trickle in over time, meaning the total effect is a lot lower.
Not building suburban lines won't stop the Tokyo Trains. It'll only delay things by maybe a decade, so instead of 2050, 2040.

[scottN]

I think a Hastings line would offer some relief to the Expo line even if it didn't turn south. From much of north Burnaby, the fastest way to get downtown is to take the Millenium Line and tranfer to the Expo Line. With a Hastings Line in place that would become the preferred route to go downtown instead and there wouldn't be as many transfers from the Millenium Line to the Expo Line.

But the easiest and cheapest way would surely be to lengthen the trains, lengthen the platforms at high use stations and use selective door opening at other stations. There appears to be plenty of straight track to allow for longer platforms at all stations, and only the underground stations at Granville and Burrard and maybe also Columbia would pose big construction challenges. You could probably get away with only lengthening the platforms at half the stations.

A 7 car train would be 117m long. Two A cars at one end would only open at A stations. Two B cars at the other end would only open at B stations and there would be 3 A+B cars in the middle that open at every station. The pocket tracks near Nanaimo and Metrotown seem to be about 150m long so they should be able to handle this length of train without any changes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, considering the City is moving without the city and TransLink doesn't seem to care, I'd be skeptical on that.

A temporary inconvenience for greater benefit is kind of Infrastructure 101. It's a shame if we really can't just go cut-and-cover on major roads anymore. I'd argue it's still worth it to try, for the $800M to $1B, but we've hit a standstill, and it's probably pointless to continue.
Would cut and cover on side roads be ok? Not exactly feasible here, but maybe elsewhere.

95B/Hastings is approx 2/5ths of the 99B's riderhip. Unlikely to be serious problems there for at least the next 2-3 decades, as the 99B's ridership increased ~30.5% since 1998.
Meaning that it might take ~5 decades until we actually hit capacity on the buses on Hastings.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tran...ship-data-2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_B-Line#History

The only realistic possibility is congestion on the Expo, which is partially mitigated by the Broadway Extension (no longer have to go to DT to get to the Canada).
Hastings could serve as a relief line if it turned south. At that point, you're talking a ~$4B project to get a bored tunnel to Gilmore/Brentwood. The problem is that the vast majority of the demand from Main St to Commerical-Broadway actually is coming from the Expo (not Millennium) side of things, so how useful that'd be is up to question. Going all the way to the Expo seems to be of limited usefulness due to the distance being ~1.86 km longer than the Expo Route.

Yes, and TransLink placated the suburban people by moving some money to the SoF extensions simultaneously. If TransLink earmarked the entire Ph1+2 SoF money to getting to UBC instead (as it would logically be- I know they technically don't have all the money yet, but it's not like the boring machine is going to arrive at Arbutus all that quickly- they'd have time to get the remaining Ph2 funds) they'd be fuming and suburbanites would be just as pissed with TransLink as in the early 2010s.
They moved money from a project that would be more important from your perspective, into a suburban line that ends in (admittedly) the edge of the city.

Langley, BTW would increase the demand by 3600pphd at the most congested point over Best Bus. Skytrain to Newton, 1870pphpd. Both by 2041.

Maybe. But since Hastings would be limited as a relief line (even Toronto's (original) DRL was pretty limited in effectiveness and would only provide temporary relief of 5900phpd, which considering the greater size of Toronto... (https://stevemunro.ca/2016/06/27/tor...v-relief-line/), so this isn't unique), you'd still have that problem no matter what you do. The only way to solve the Expo congestion problem ultimately is probably to expand the Expo itself. Easier said than done, and the money would suck any left for Hastings.
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...%20Summary.pdf
https://www.translink.ca/-/media/Doc...Evaluation.pdf
Note also the new ridership will trickle in over time, meaning the total effect is a lot lower.
Not building suburban lines won't stop the Tokyo Trains. It'll only delay things by maybe a decade, so instead of 2050, 2040.

City's moving to plan and build the Greenway, which is independent of TransLink and the streetcar. I'd be genuinely surprised if the City has a direct role in building the streetcar itself - even they realize that they have no idea how to do public transit.

That's kind of the point - with Broadway, both the City and TransLink have decided that they want to minimize the inconvenience.
Many arterials have much the same kind of car/bus traffic and commercial density as Cambie (if not more), so every party involved has to decide whether or not the short-term savings justify the potential fallout. I should point out that last time around, cut n' cover saved $400 million (~$500 million 2019), not $800-1,000 million. You can decide if that was worth it.

Despite most ridership coming in from Metrotown or beyond, and the Arbutus extension providing another way into the core, the point is, Expo or Millennium, everyone interchanges at Commercial; build a Lonsdale or a Port Coq line, that gets even worse.
Hastings is going to become a major corridor in and of itself - even if it doesn't connect to the M-Line at all, a parallel line means that most local riders'd use it to go into the core instead of the M-Line.

Langley needs to happen, I'm not contesting that. And if we can guarantee funding for it and UBC, and then the same level of funding every decade, this entire argument is moot. If not, we need to come up with something else.
And on top of that something else, there's not a lot of phase-able projects left. Half a Hastings Line might work, but half a Newton-Guildford/North Shore/Port Coq Line doesn't... and half a Lonsdale Line gives you a tunnel to the middle of Burrard Inlet. So that means we'll have to go suburb, core, suburb, core - maybe two suburbs for every core? Crowding's going to be an issue anyway, agreed, but we're going to get there a whole lot faster if it's just suburb, suburb, suburb and no core.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

City's moving to plan and build the Greenway, which is independent of TransLink and the streetcar. I'd be genuinely surprised if the City has a direct role in building the streetcar itself - even they realize that they have no idea how to do public transit.

That's kind of the point - with Broadway, both the City and TransLink have decided that they want to minimize the inconvenience.
Many arterials have much the same kind of car/bus traffic and commercial density as Cambie (if not more), so every party involved has to decide whether or not the short-term savings justify the potential fallout. I should point out that last time around, cut n' cover saved $400 million (~$500 million 2019), not $800-1,000 million. You can decide if that was worth it.

Despite most ridership coming in from Metrotown or beyond, and the Arbutus extension providing another way into the core, the point is, Expo or Millennium, everyone interchanges at Commercial; build a Lonsdale or a Port Coq line, that gets even worse.
Hastings is going to become a major corridor in and of itself - even if it doesn't connect to the M-Line at all, a parallel line means that most local riders'd use it to go into the core instead of the M-Line.

Langley needs to happen, I'm not contesting that. And if we can guarantee funding for it and UBC, and then the same level of funding every decade, this entire argument is moot. If not, we need to come up with something else.
And on top of that something else, there's not a lot of phase-able projects left. Half a Hastings Line might work, but half a Newton-Guildford/North Shore/Port Coq Line doesn't... and half a Lonsdale Line gives you a tunnel to the middle of Burrard Inlet. So that means we'll have to go suburb, core, suburb, core - maybe two suburbs for every core? Crowding's going to be an issue anyway, agreed, but we're going to get there a whole lot faster if it's just suburb, suburb, suburb and no core.

No, but it makes 0 sense to build a Bus Loops at the current terminus to abandon it a couple years later. It's less efficient overall (minus cost inflation) to phase 2 projects like this instead of focus all the money into 1 and build the other one at once later.

It's a political move.

RE: Cut-and-cover's cost, is that comparing the Bombardier proposal over the OTL one?

But yeah, Commerical-Broadway needs to become a 2nd Waterfront Station with or without the Hastings (possible extension of the Lonsdale into East Van and Richmond as a relief for the Canada), and it's not designed for that. The lack of/slow redevelopment around the area may actually be a blessing in disguise in this case. Without the Hastings, people would still likely use the SeaBus for Direct-Downtown transfers.

You could say the same thing about DRL/Ontario, and the benefits of a relief line there are still very limited (especially considering the scale). If Toronto can't get higher frequencies at the same time as the DRL/Ontario, they're screwed.

Yeah, 2-3 suburban/urban seems to be consistent with the current strategy. That pushes Hastings to after the NS though (assuming the next Suburban are White Rock-Newton-Guildford-Langley+PoCo). Maybe you'd get the NS and Hastings simultaneously so we can actually get rid of the Seabus. Assuming they can deal with the DTES problem somehow.

Originally Posted by scottN

I think a Hastings line would offer some relief to the Expo line even if it didn't turn south. From much of north Burnaby, the fastest way to get downtown is to take the Millenium Line and tranfer to the Expo Line. With a Hastings Line in place that would become the preferred route to go downtown instead and there wouldn't be as many transfers from the Millenium Line to the Expo Line.

But the easiest and cheapest way would surely be to lengthen the trains, lengthen the platforms at high use stations and use selective door opening at other stations. There appears to be plenty of straight track to allow for longer platforms at all stations, and only the underground stations at Granville and Burrard and maybe also Columbia would pose big construction challenges. You could probably get away with only lengthening the platforms at half the stations.

A 7 car train would be 117m long. Two A cars at one end would only open at A stations. Two B cars at the other end would only open at B stations and there would be 3 A+B cars in the middle that open at every station. The pocket tracks near Nanaimo and Metrotown seem to be about 150m long so they should be able to handle this length of train without any changes.

Some relief, yes, but it wouldn't be as effective. Plus, the demand after Boundary is a lot lower, so truncating there and reserving space for a future line for the long-term is most likely best.

Yeah, but them people would be trapped in stations they didn't want to be stuck in. Unless the outer cabs are designated as a skip-stop service, but the most difficult ones are the underground ones, which everyone wants to get off at (Downtown).

You could get 130m long platforms with 8-car trains for a total car length ~136m (current max is 5-car) for all the elevated stations easily (ignoring possible slight inclinations that would complicate matters- and Main Street and New West are already pretty much built to over that length) minus Gateway in Surrey, where the track connecting between the 2 tracks would have to be demolished somehow. King George also has a similar problem, but it might be able to simply be ignored, since it's not built to Spanish Solution (you might still want to rebuild the station to Spanish Solution anyways, though, so the Surrey Stations would be closed off.)
Ie. The current Surrey section would have to be shut down.
The Lougheed Spur on the Expo was not included in this analysis, neither was the Langley Extension, which might become a new line.

Assuming each MKIII train carries 20-50 more passengers than the MKIIs (so 50 passengers over the MKII earlier gen), this means a capacity of 702.5 people/train.

Considering the current max #s assume 93 s headways rather than the max of Taipei's Brown Line at 72s min. (any more, and you'd likely have problems with trains not being able to 'catch up').
All this means that the modern absolute capacity max is likely around 35,125pphpd maximum. This excludes the possible removal of even more seats, but MKIIIs are already fairly highly optimized, with a seating factor (seats per row) of 2.5.
Having a seating factor of 2 - (ie. same # of seats as row seating, though w/ not necessarily the same layout) https://www.wired.com/2013/04/rethin...ubway-seating/ and a standing space ratio ~0.35m^2 (approx. correct #s for MKIs) means a capacity increase of ~7.5 people/train.

The absolute potential maximum capacity with all possible improvements on existing infrastructure is 35,500pphpd.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=NbY...pacity&f=false

With 130m long stations (8-train MKIIIs), this means a potential max capacity of 56,800pphpd could be reached, a number that should be enough for anything the future demands of Vancouver could throw at it for the next 6-7 decades.

Dunno if you could deal with potential inclination problems without having to rebuild the stations.

Dunno about the cost of doing this thing. We 'extended' Main Street and New West (kind of), but I can't find the individual cost of the upgrades, plus, it didn't actually add in longer platforms or anything.

Anyone have any idea how to calculate such a thing, I'm open ears.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

No, but it makes 0 sense to build a Bus Loops at the current terminus to abandon it a couple years later. It's less efficient overall (minus cost inflation) to phase 2 projects like this instead of focus all the money into 1 and build the other one at once later.

It's a political move.

RE: Cut-and-cover's cost, is that comparing the Bombardier proposal over the OTL one?

But yeah, Commerical-Broadway needs to become a 2nd Waterfront Station with or without the Hastings (possible extension of the Lonsdale into East Van and Richmond as a relief for the Canada), and it's not designed for that. The lack of/slow redevelopment around the area may actually be a blessing in disguise in this case. Without the Hastings, people would still likely use the SeaBus for Direct-Downtown transfers.

You could say the same thing about DRL/Ontario, and the benefits of a relief line there are still very limited (especially considering the scale). If Toronto can't get higher frequencies at the same time as the DRL/Ontario, they're screwed.

Yeah, 2-3 suburban/urban seems to be consistent with the current strategy. That pushes Hastings to after the NS though (assuming the next Suburban are White Rock-Newton-Guildford-Langley+PoCo). Maybe you'd get the NS and Hastings simultaneously so we can actually get rid of the Seabus. Assuming they can deal with the DTES problem somehow.

Not disagreeing. On the bright side, it should be easy enough to turn the bus loop into lowrises or a plaza or something.

Allegedly, SNC Lavalin's original proposal was for a bored tunnel down the Cambie corridor, but then they switched to CnC by exploiting a contract loophole. The total savings? $400 million.

Hell, Waterfront isn't designed to be Waterfront. What we need to be doing, in the absence of large interchanges, is spreading ridership over several small-medium ones instead.

IMO part of Toronto's problem is that they've got ridership coming into downtown from four directions (W, NW, NE, E), whereas Vancouver only has three (S, SE, E). So a Hastings Line would grab part of 1/3rd of the traffic instead of just part of 1/4th.

Makes sense. Though I'd argue that the DTES is a band-aid TransLink will have to rip off anyway. And SeaBuses could still be useful if they cover Waterfront-Ambleside or some other point between downtown and the North Shore.

[Tvisforme]

With regard to a North Shore SkyTrain connection, past discussions here have indicated that the most natural connection - Waterfront to Lonsdale Quay - is problematic due to the underwater terrain. Further to that, the SeaBus is already in place, isn't that much slower (overall, given the short distance) and is a great tourist draw. As such, wouldn't it make sense to just keep it as is - maximizing connection efficiency for central North Vancouver - and design any north-south SkyTrain connections to focus on the other parts of the North Shore? Even with the slower speed and the need to change modes, I'd still prefer to go directly downtown rather than looping around the Second Narrows, for example.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

With regard to a North Shore SkyTrain connection, past discussions here have indicated that the most natural connection - Waterfront to Lonsdale Quay - is problematic due to the underwater terrain. Further to that, the SeaBus is already in place, isn't that much slower (overall, given the short distance) and is a great tourist draw. As such, wouldn't it make sense to just keep it as is - maximizing connection efficiency for central North Vancouver - and design any north-south SkyTrain connections to focus on the other parts of the North Shore?

100% Agreement here. This is why my preference for a Central Lonsdale-Commercial Dr. Connection has always been higher than a Quay-Waterfront Connection.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not disagreeing. .............

IMO part of Toronto's problem is that they've got ridership coming into downtown from four directions (W, NW, NE, E), whereas Vancouver only has three (S, SE, E). So a Hastings Line would grab part of 1/3rd of the traffic instead of just part of 1/4th.

Makes sense. Though I'd argue that the DTES is a band-aid TransLink will have to rip off anyway. And SeaBuses could still be useful if they cover Waterfront-Ambleside or some other point between downtown and the North Shore.

Regarding text above and not to be finnicky, you only mention the major Vancouver egress/ingress flows as S, SE, E. That said, what about NS, HB, and Commute directions N, NW, W .... Thank you

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Allegedly, SNC Lavalin's original proposal was for a bored tunnel down the Cambie corridor, but then they switched to CnC by exploiting a contract loophole. The total savings? $400 million.

As someone who worked for SNC Lavalin at the time I can offer some insight on how this actually went down. The reference design provided in the bid documents was for a fully bored tunnel. However there was no requirement for a fully bored tunnel. The only requirement was that it be fully underground from waterfront to 53rd avenue or so (I don't remember the exact location). There were also requirements end to end run time and for ultimate capacity. The bid requirements were very loose and even allowed for an LRT solution with street running sections in Richmond. The SNC Lavalin bid was for cut and cover south of Olympic Village from day 1, including the stacked tunnel to reduce the width of the cut. We actually analyzed the LRT option but concluded that the construction cost savings were minimal and did not justify the higher operating cost. The tunnel was a big factor, as LRT vehicles get power from an overhead catenary and that means the tunnel would need to be taller, negating much of the savings from not needing to build elevated guideways in Richmond.

However due to the competitive nature of the bidding process, all the information about the SNC Lavalin bid (including the C&C tunnel) was considered to be commercially confidential and was withheld from the public until the contract was signed. (Otherwise the various bidders would know what the other bidders were proposing). By the time contracts were done and made public it was far too late to change anything as the designs were being finalized. The bidding and bid evaluation process took about 2.5 years, which didn't leave much time for boring a long tunnel anyway. The cut and cover savings were reflected in the bid price, which was probably a factor in why the SNC Lavalin bid won. Boring tunnels is also a risky proposition (as we saw with the Evergreen line and the Big Bertha fiasco down in Seattle).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Regarding text above and not to be finnicky, you only mention the major Vancouver egress/ingress flows as S, SE, E. That said, what about NS, HB, and Commute directions N, NW, W .... Thank you

And on the mid-harbor connection, it'd transfer onto the East commute direction, and on the Seabus, it's irrelevant to the discussion of Expo Line congestion.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not disagreeing. On the bright side, it should be easy enough to turn the bus loop into lowrises or a plaza or something.

Allegedly, SNC Lavalin's original proposal was for a bored tunnel down the Cambie corridor, but then they switched to CnC by exploiting a contract loophole. The total savings? $400 million.

Hell, Waterfront isn't designed to be Waterfront. What we need to be doing, in the absence of large interchanges, is spreading ridership over several small-medium ones instead.

IMO part of Toronto's problem is that they've got ridership coming into downtown from four directions (W, NW, NE, E), whereas Vancouver only has three (S, SE, E). So a Hastings Line would grab part of 1/3rd of the traffic instead of just part of 1/4th.

Makes sense. Though I'd argue that the DTES is a band-aid TransLink will have to rip off anyway. And SeaBuses could still be useful if they cover Waterfront-Ambleside or some other point between downtown and the North Shore.

Yeah, without a source, I'm probably going to take that with a big grain of salt...


Waterfront isn't designed to be Waterfront, but it's pretty much as big as it really needs to be. Really, what's needed is the circulation space, and Waterfront has plenty, though it is busy. Theoretically you could get rid of some of the businesses inside for more if you needed it.
The Safeway Redevelopment plans have plazas around them that could provide some room for expansion... so . If the Shoppers isn't redeveloped, it should be enough there.


Thing is that big interchanges are kind of more convenient for everyone for transferring. It's kind of the reason why the suburbs use Bus Loops so much.



If you could shove every single rider going from the Millennium to DT onto Hastings (unlikely, but there'd also be some bus demand not going into the Expo), you'd get a 5121 pphpd by 2041 improvement. To be generous, the Expo Low Scenario is expected to have ~23500pphpd use at its peak AM section by 2041 in the Expo Line Upgrade Strategy.

Therefore, there you'd have a ~22% decrease in terms of usage, not 1/3rd. Obviously, it'd not connected to PoCo, Maple Ridge, etc, but the Expo isn't connected to Langley and Newton yet.

Optimistically you'd have a decade of spare capacity. Pessimistically, it'd offer relief for as long as it took to build the line in the first place. It's just as temporary of relief as the DRL.

DT-Ambleside still seems it would be faster by Skytrain (or even just bus).

I've heard the idea that Ambleside-UBC (or At least Alma St.) could work for NS-UBC transfers, but... it's still a pretty niche market, and it'd not connected to Skytrain on the Pt. Grey side.

There's been a ton of proposals to expand the Seabus, and none of them have gone through. Centerm is going to be expanded to very close to the SeaBus pathway, so there's also a possibility that the Port'd rather have TransLink get rid of the SeaBus sooner rather than later.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Thing is that big interchanges are kind of more convenient for everyone for transferring. It's kind of the reason why the suburbs use Bus Loops so much.

I think bus loop interchanges are convenient because they maximize the opportunities to make a trip with a single transfer. That doesn't mean that it's the only way to enable such a trip. In the city of Vancouver we use a grid system for bus routes that allows single point transfers for most trips. This is generally regarded as being more efficient than the suburban system of bus loops and spaghetti routes.

Another example is that extending the millenium line to Cambie street is going to create a new hub, which will offer more direct transfers to the canada line and allow people to avoid transferring twice. Somehow extending the canada line to commercial-broadway or extending the millenium line to waterfront for a single big interchange transfer would not have been as efficient, since it would make trips longer and would not reduce the number of required transfers, except for people who start or end their trip near the chosen hub. Big interchanges requires longer station dwell times, which can affect minimum headways if the big interchange is not a terminus station.

Considering a north shore rapid transit line I think it should be evaluated based on the number of transit services to which it offers a direct transfer. Sure you can get a lot of these in one station at waterfront, but with a crossing further east you could spread them out and hit Hastings, Millenium line, Expo line, R4 rapid bus and other cross-town bus routes at different stations. I think the ideal location for a north shore rapid transit line would be crossing further east to hit Rupert and Joyce then turn west along 41st to hit the Canada line at Oakridge. Another option proposed in this forum is to hit Gilmore or Brentwood then Metrotown. Sure these options don't go directly downtown but they would offer efficient one transfer connections to a lot of different places.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by scottN

If the trains are already running at or near the minimum headway for capacity reasons, wouldn't you need a bypass for the express train to pass more frequently than that? Skipping a station would save about a minute so it only takes a couple of skips to catch up to the train ahead.

On the other hand you could do A/B style skip-stop service without adding any bypass tracks as long as the A and B stations are adjacent. That's not as effective (or as intuitive) as express service though.

Say a local train runs 22.2 m/s, decelerates at a rate of 1.2 m/s^2 and accelerates at 1.5 m/s^2, it takes 18.5 seconds to decelerate, 20 seconds to open the door, dwell, and close the door, then 15 seconds to accelerate to full speed. It takes 53.5 seconds to travel 372 metres.

Say an express train doesn't stop but does slow down to 60 km/h (16.7 m/s) to pass a station for 160 metres, by the power of multiple math equations, I calculated it takes 20.1 seconds for the express train to go the same 372 metres (average speed 66.6 km/h), a savings of 33.4 seconds.

That's a savings of 2 minutes 13.6 seconds between Broadway and Metrotown, likewise for Metrotown to Columbia (4 stations skipped). The local trains would be slowed down a minute each interchange station to accommodate the leap frogging express trains. Way less time saved than I estimated. So it doesn't seem worth it for the complication. If they ever got to the point where they can't squeeze more capacity out of the twin track, I'd rather they build the Arbutus-41st-Willingdon-Hastings loop and get some badly needed capacity in the core.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Say a local train runs 22.2 m/s, decelerates at a rate of 1.2 m/s^2 and accelerates at 1.5 m/s^2, it takes 18.5 seconds to decelerate, 20 seconds to open the door, dwell, and close the door, then 15 seconds to accelerate to full speed. It takes 53.5 seconds to travel 372 metres.

Say an express train doesn't stop but does slow down to 60 km/h (16.7 m/s) to pass a station for 160 metres, by the power of multiple math equations, I calculated it takes 20.1 seconds for the express train to go the same 372 metres (average speed 66.6 km/h), a savings of 33.4 seconds.

That's a savings of 2 minutes 13.6 seconds between Broadway and Metrotown, likewise for Metrotown to Columbia (4 stations skipped). The local trains would be slowed down a minute each interchange station to accommodate the leap frogging express trains. Way less time saved than I estimated. So it doesn't seem worth it for the complication. If they ever got to the point where they can't squeeze more capacity out of the twin track, I'd rather they build the Arbutus-41st-Willingdon-Hastings loop and get some badly needed capacity in the core.

Don't forget that it's trivial to skip stations between the interchange stations and the terminus stations. So you can count on a few more minutes saved by skipping a few more stops. That would also spread out the arrival times of the trains at the terminus stations

If we are running 108 second headways on average and the trains are half local, half express then the local trains are spaced 216s (3:26) apart. Let's say an express train can pull into a station 30s behind a local train, then leave and the local train leaves 30s after that. That puts the express train 30s head of the local train would have left had it not been passed, and 2:56 behind the next local train it needs to pass (assuming that it also had to wait 1 minute to be passed). So the express train has to make up 2:26 by the next interchange station to arrive within 30s of the local train ahead of it. If it can make up more time than that, it just slows down a bit. If it can't make up the time then we have a problem with the system.

At tighter headways the amount of time the express train can make up between interchange stations decreases. With a different ratio of express and local trains I think it would turn into a big mess, as the headway between local trains needs to be either 216s x1 or 216s x 2 (or is is 216s x 2 -60s?)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scottN

Considering a north shore rapid transit line I think it should be evaluated based on the number of transit services to which it offers a direct transfer. Sure you can get a lot of these in one station at waterfront, but with a crossing further east you could spread them out and hit Hastings, Millenium line, Expo line, R4 rapid bus and other cross-town bus routes at different stations. I think the ideal location for a north shore rapid transit line would be crossing further east to hit Rupert and Joyce then turn west along 41st to hit the Canada line at Oakridge. Another option proposed in this forum is to hit Gilmore or Brentwood then Metrotown. Sure these options don't go directly downtown but they would offer efficient one transfer connections to a lot of different places.

Don't forget that the CNV is the densest and most transit-receptive part of the North Sohre. The 2018 study predicts higher ridership/mode transfer near the SeaBus and lower at the Second Narrows, so anything east of Rupert is probably not a serious option.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yeah, without a source, I'm probably going to take that with a big grain of salt...

Waterfront isn't designed to be Waterfront, but it's pretty much as big as it really needs to be. Really, what's needed is the circulation space, and Waterfront has plenty, though it is busy. Theoretically you could get rid of some of the businesses inside for more if you needed it.
The Safeway Redevelopment plans have plazas around them that could provide some room for expansion... so . If the Shoppers isn't redeveloped, it should be enough there.

Thing is that big interchanges are kind of more convenient for everyone for transferring. It's kind of the reason why the suburbs use Bus Loops so much.

If you could shove every single rider going from the Millennium to DT onto Hastings (unlikely, but there'd also be some bus demand not going into the Expo), you'd get a 5121 pphpd by 2041 improvement. To be generous, the Expo Low Scenario is expected to have ~23500pphpd use at its peak AM section by 2041 in the Expo Line Upgrade Strategy.

Therefore, there you'd have a ~22% decrease in terms of usage, not 1/3rd. Obviously, it'd not connected to PoCo, Maple Ridge, etc, but the Expo isn't connected to Langley and Newton yet.

Optimistically you'd have a decade of spare capacity. Pessimistically, it'd offer relief for as long as it took to build the line in the first place. It's just as temporary of relief as the DRL.

DT-Ambleside still seems it would be faster by Skytrain (or even just bus).

I've heard the idea that Ambleside-UBC (or At least Alma St.) could work for NS-UBC transfers, but... it's still a pretty niche market, and it'd not connected to Skytrain on the Pt. Grey side.

There's been a ton of proposals to expand the Seabus, and none of them have gone through. Centerm is going to be expanded to very close to the SeaBus pathway, so there's also a possibility that the Port'd rather have TransLink get rid of the SeaBus sooner rather than later.

Google it? It's not exactly a secret. Scott's got a more in-depth post up top if you'd prefer.

I don't doubt that big interchanges aren't useful - quite the opposite. I'm saying that we don't have any of them (Safeway's kind of a maybe minus), so we're going to have to try something different.
Take Waterfront: much of the traffic is an influx of people getting off the WCE/SeaBus/Expo to transfer or leave. More stations or an actual connection at Granville-City Centre are probably better ideas than cutting into the station's revenue-generating areas.

Fair enough, though I'll point out that the study's predicting Broadway's growth with 2012 data, not Hastings/Lougheed with 2016 onwards. Maybe a Willingdon/Downtown extension would make more of a dent.

Just throwing out Ambleside as a brainstorm, given the existing dock - probably right about a downtown route being too slow. UBC/Jericho's definitely too far, agreed. Kits Point?

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Don't forget that the CNV is the densest and most transit-receptive part of the North Sohre. The 2018 study predicts higher ridership/mode transfer near the SeaBus and lower at the Second Narrows, so anything east of Rupert is probably not a serious option.

Even if a 4km tunnel under the deepest part of the harbour is deemed reasonable, there's still the problem of serving the city of North Vancouver itself. The existing dense corridor is going up Lonsdale itself, which is too steep even for Skytrain. Going east or west you very quickly run out of the city centre and into lower density single family homes.

The city of North Vancouver has literally grown up around the sea bus and the ferries that preceeded it for commuting into Downtown, so of course any study of transit demand based on present commuting patterns is going to indicate the strongest demand for that route. This just goes to show that in the long run good transit creates its own demand. Rail service from the north shore to Metrotown for instance won't be popular initially, but it will change the way people think about commuting to or from the north shore and might affect the mix of people who want to live on the north shore.

The question I'm really getting at here is what is the purpose of rapid transit on the north shore? Is it to better serve current seabus riders so they can cut 8 minutes each way off their trip? Or is it to attract new transit riders and relieve congestion on the bridges. Is it to attract new transit riders to reduce congestion within the north shore? Is it new infrastructure to enable population growth and if so, then where is the growth going to be? And if the growth is going to be in the west vancouver upper lands then maybe we should just get a faster seabus.

[waves]

Originally Posted by scottN

The question I'm really getting at here is what is the purpose of rapid transit on the north shore? Is it to better serve current seabus riders so they can cut 8 minutes each way off their trip? Or is it to attract new transit riders and relieve congestion on the bridges. Is it to attract new transit riders to reduce congestion within the north shore? Is it new infrastructure to enable population growth and if so, then where is the growth going to be?

This hits the nail on the head. Scott, why do you prefer Rupert over Commercial Dr?

[scottN]

Originally Posted by waves

This hits the nail on the head. Scott, why do you prefer Rupert over Commercial Dr?

Simply because it lines up with the second narrows where you could build a bridge there rather than a tunnel and it would be far less expensive. It's also a wider right of way. Commercial drive is only 66 feet wide in many blocks. That's the same width as an average local residential street. Crossing the grandview cut at commercial would also be tricky, because there's already 4 levels of railway, skytrain, road and skytrain all crossing over one another. You can't use a tunnel under the street because it would hit the millenium line.

A bit further east, Nanaimo, Renfrew and Rupert Streets are all 100 feet wide. 100 feet is the same as the width of the right of way the expo line is built on through the residential parts of east vancouver from Nanaimo to Joyce. That leaves enough room for the skytrain and a local or collector level street (e.g. Vanness Ave). Stations like Nanaimo or Joyce consume the entire ROW width, so some extra property would need to be purchased to continue the road around the station (as is the case at Joyce). Now it is a pretty lame route as far as destinations go, but it does make the require connections to reach Lougheed, Brentwood, Metrotown, New Westminster and Surrey efficiently.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Google it? It's not exactly a secret. Scott's got a more in-depth post up top if you'd prefer.

I don't doubt that big interchanges aren't useful - quite the opposite. I'm saying that we don't have any of them (Safeway's kind of a maybe minus), so we're going to have to try something different.
Take Waterfront: much of the traffic is an influx of people getting off the WCE/SeaBus/Expo to transfer or leave. More stations or an actual connection at Granville-City Centre are probably better ideas than cutting into the station's revenue-generating areas.

Fair enough, though I'll point out that the study's predicting Broadway's growth with 2012 data, not Hastings/Lougheed with 2016 onwards. Maybe a Willingdon/Downtown extension would make more of a dent.

Just throwing out Ambleside as a brainstorm, given the existing dock - probably right about a downtown route being too slow. UBC/Jericho's definitely too far, agreed. Kits Point?

Yeah, I'm still taking it with a grain of salt. I know too much about how these sorts of numbers can be manipulated around.

I don't doubt that big interchanges aren't useful - quite the opposite. I'm saying that we don't have any of them (Safeway's kind of a maybe minus), so we're going to have to try something different.
Take Waterfront: much of the traffic is an influx of people getting off the WCE/SeaBus/Expo to transfer or leave. More stations or an actual connection at Granville-City Centre are probably better ideas than cutting into the station's revenue-generating areas.

We have plenty of big exchanges. Like Metrotown. Ok, yeah, the suburbs have more of them, mostly because it's more important there.

You could make Waterfront more a hub and move more of the regional buses there if you put in the DT Streetcar/BRT. There's the proposed plaza on the parking lot next to Waterfront as is as well that could serve as a small bus loop (you just need enough space to drop and load people. Ditto the eventual redevelopment of the train tracks, since you'd need a lot more money for that. 200 Granville Street could provide space in its parkade for a bus loop as well. Obviously you'd need to buy that space. Assuming they want to sell.

But funny for you to imply Transit isn't revenue generating.
Not to mention I don't understand how that's somehow cheaper than cutting in a new station somehow. Clark and Boundary-Kingsway aren't that useful for bus transfers. Granville and City Center need a connection though.

I would have used Expo numbers too, if I had the possibility, I can’t find any (accurate) ones. Though it is consistent with pretty much everything else on the subject (like the TSPR).

I don’t know if connecting the Expo to Hastings would make a difference. It works on the Ellington-Ontario, but the line is actually longer and not faster to get to DT or the NS (the Hastings is roughly 2 sides of a triangle and the Expo is the Hypotenuse...) I want one because it connects to a lot of Burnaby’s important institutions (BCIT, Burnaby Gen.) and lets Brentwood and Metrotown merge, but it doesn’t seem to make sense from a relief perspective. Maybe people would take a longer ride if it’s less congested, but you can go from New West to DT via Hastings via the Millennium without a connection to the Expo.

The other option for relief is Tram-Train Commuter Rail for suburban and New West commuters. Whether that’d be cheaper is up to question. I’ll see what I can calculate for that in terms of relief later.

That dock is definitely too small for SeaBus. Maybe a smaller boat could work, more designed as a larger False Creek Ferry/ waterborne streetcar than a Seabus on Kits as well as Waterfront and Lonsdale.
Same thing with Kits- the Coast Guard Station and Burrard Bridge blocks the possibility for a large dock.

Originally Posted by scottN

I think bus loop interchanges are convenient because they maximize the opportunities to make a trip with a single transfer. That doesn't mean that it's the only way to enable such a trip. In the city of Vancouver we use a grid system for bus routes that allows single point transfers for most trips. This is generally regarded as being more efficient than the suburban system of bus loops and spaghetti routes.

Another example is that extending the millenium line to Cambie street is going to create a new hub, which will offer more direct transfers to the canada line and allow people to avoid transferring twice. Somehow extending the canada line to commercial-broadway or extending the millenium line to waterfront for a single big interchange transfer would not have been as efficient, since it would make trips longer and would not reduce the number of required transfers, except for people who start or end their trip near the chosen hub. Big interchanges requires longer station dwell times, which can affect minimum headways if the big interchange is not a terminus station.

Considering a north shore rapid transit line I think it should be evaluated based on the number of transit services to which it offers a direct transfer. Sure you can get a lot of these in one station at waterfront, but with a crossing further east you could spread them out and hit Hastings, Millenium line, Expo line, R4 rapid bus and other cross-town bus routes at different stations. I think the ideal location for a north shore rapid transit line would be crossing further east to hit Rupert and Joyce then turn west along 41st to hit the Canada line at Oakridge. Another option proposed in this forum is to hit Gilmore or Brentwood then Metrotown. Sure these options don't go directly downtown but they would offer efficient one transfer connections to a lot of different places.

Well, yeah, but there's no need to move buses over to say, Patterson, over Metrotown. In fact, 125 should be moved to Metrotown.

[lokyin]

Why not have a Hastings skytrain line from Waterfront going east until Kootenay Loop / Boundary, then turn north to cross second narrows at its narrowest point, and end the line at Phibbs Exchange?

A terminus at Phibbs would be great hub for all the bus traffic coming down from Lynn Valley, and be the transfer point to the new north shore rapidbus. This route would also alleviate bus demand for routes 209/210/211, and also the Hastings R-line, and serve PNE, and Burnaby will benefit from Kootenay as a station since their mayor has always wanted a station on the north.

It'd also potentially alleviate Lonsdale Quay seabus if there's less demand of Lynn Valley residents being diverted to Phibbs for skytrain to downtown.

Wouldn't this have much higher potential to densify (all along hastings and at phibbs) with more development? And also benefit more parts of metro van than just extending a connection to Lonsdale Quay?