Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
I suppose we could close off Cornwall/Macdonald/westbound 4th, but I'm not sure how far that ROW will get you...
|
I was actually thinking that the merits of that LRT route idea
(pulled from the sky, mind you 
) would lie in it connecting eastwards... perhaps even following through W. 6th and W. 2nd and then heading south on Main and then having it head down Kingsway and beyond? Again, it's just a rough fantasy idea to incorporate more LRT routes outside of the Arbutus greenway LRT route to make LRT more feasible and useful in the Metro Vancouver region
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheba
There could be other possible locations for a LRT - but it would have to be on it's own separate ROW, not mixed in with car traffic. That's why it could work along Arbutus and it could also work if we were to create ROWs next to highways. The plan for running it down the middle of King George and 104 Ave was terrible.
|
No matter what technology you use to operate with, selecting designs that dedicate the infrastructure as its own ROW will always benefit the transit users the most. The King George proposal in Surrey was an absolute dog's breakfast and it serves as one of the many examples in Canada where LRT is marketed to the public incorrectly since they were claiming that it would be a rapid transit solution when its design was anything but.
I agree that the LRT route along Arbutus is a very attractive route because it mostly has its own ROW with very little interaction with vehicular traffic. But if you're thinking that the Arbutus route needs to be
completely segregated from traffic then you'd need to incorporate elevation (which will be opposed by NIMBYS) or tunnels (which are expensive) - and at that point, then comes the question as to why we aren't switching to Skytrain technology if the region is demanding for complete grade separation. Beyond the Arbutus Greenway, I am actually open to LRT routes that do share the road with vehicles as a streetcar-like network so long as it is designed to be an optimal choice for transit users. I'm thinking that having low-floor vehicles (just like the TTC's new models) on routes that have high ridership, that would NEVER see true rapid transit infrastructure; would be okay to develop as another tier of green transit that frees up more buses in the Metro Vancouver region. All of this is completely contingent upon the design of the route though and how it is incorporated on the street but I do honestly see it being a success in Vancouver if it's done correctly.
The Arbutus route serves as a very decent consideration for LRT because you would need drivers to operate the trains when integrating with street traffic and the construction and cost of implementing this LRT system route wouldn't be as formidable as other routes that were proposed in the past. Again this is just a personal opinion but having the Arbutus greenway developed as an LRT system is an appropriate example of the right place and the right design.
LRT has rightfully earned a bad rep because it has been so poorly implemented in the western provinces and it continues to be incorrectly marketed as a
rapid transit solution. LRT should address capacity issues on routes that would never be able to accommodate rapid transit infrastructure.
My opinion is that this kind of a system is very niche and it has a right place and a right time; and that Arbutus could very well be a great starting point for LRT to be correctly introduced to the region. My idea with a W. 4th avenue route of some sort would be a far-flung future development of another LRT route.
Prev
Linear Mode
