The next GVRD rapid transit line?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Klazu

For viewing convenience. I don't see the point of the 2002 proposal. Also all those proposals with tunnel head in the open water would have looked horrible.


http://www.6717000.com/blog/2002/02/...s-resurfacing/

The 2002 option makes a lot of sense, since it would remove nearly all through traffic accessing the north Shore from downtown.

Too bad such sensible infrastructure will likely never be built in Vancouver. A 4 lanes tolled tunnel along this route would be an amazing replacement of the Lion's Gate. This could then free up the Lion's gate to be a pedestrian, cycling, and maybe bus only bridge?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The 2002 option makes a lot of sense, since it would remove nearly all through traffic accessing the north Shore from downtown.

Too bad such sensible infrastructure will likely never be built in Vancouver. A 4 lanes tolled tunnel along this route would be an amazing replacement of the Lion's Gate. This could then free up the Lion's gate to be a pedestrian, cycling, and maybe bus only bridge?

Agree very much, but there are a couple of points:

There may be traffic (even the eventuality emergency vehicles) that want to cross the LGB, and a number of downtown workers who prefer to go by car, or drivers who prefer / are required to cross the LGB. I feel that it is good to leave this choice open, only, of course, on a much more limited scale than now. (you can't do a whole lot with 3 lanes).

Also, given that the tunnel (and I agree with the 2002 version also) will take ALL North-Shore >> Crosstown traffic; is four lanes enough? I think that's cutting it a bit fine.
Six lanes would seem necessary to me.

[Metro-One]

Well in all honesty I would advocate 6 lanes, but given Vancouver I am trying to be more realistic. 4 lanes is the max that you could ever with for in a Lion's Gate replacement.

And yes, any hope of a new crossing would have to come with the LGB closing to general traffic at least. If still open for buses I am sure emergency vehicles could still use the LGB.

[scryer]

If only I could cast two votes....

1 for UBC line. Obvious.

and 1 vote for Langley via Guildford.

Surrey and Langley have got the most growth right now so I would like to see the skytrain go there. With maybe some sort of LRT/BRT going from Surrey Central to White Rock. I might be the only one who's entertaining the last part of my idea though.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by djmk

No, it's not a direct to downtown. However, a stop on Hastings for the 135 or kootney loop would make a big difference.

Also, I'm sure capilano uni is a big draw by itself to warrant a station. Possibly even that Superstore.

The Superstore is surrounded by native reserve which they have talked about making into a mega mall for decades but never seem to actually do. If there was a metrotown-sized mall there it would be a no brainer for skytrain, but if it remains undeveloped forest it would be crazy.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The 2002 option makes a lot of sense, since it would remove nearly all through traffic accessing the north Shore from downtown. [...] This could then free up the Lion's gate to be a pedestrian, cycling, and maybe bus only bridge?

The problem with the 2002 proposal in my opinion is that it is completely bypassing Downtown and would not be convenient connection from North Shore to Downtown. It would just cause a gong show at Main Street.

I don't see how Lions Gate Bridge could be replaced with any tunnel plan. It can only be complimented.

[sacrifice333]

Here, Here!

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Following the Millennium line extension, which should go all the way to UBC from day one, the next major transit project should be to get the City of Vancouver's downtown streetcar system up and running.

All of this is already planned.
Phase 0 - Modern streetcar infrastructure built from Granville Island to Mainstreet-Science World Skytrain station. This is happening as part of the Southeast False Creek athlete's village build out.
Phase 1 - Extend from Mainstreet-Science World Skytrain to Waterfront Station.
Phase 2 - Extend from Waterfront stn to Stanley Park
Phase 2.5 - Spurline from Mainstreet-Science World into Yaletown along Pacific Blvd.

All of this is on the books, Phases 0 - 2 have already been approved by Council, pending funding and agreement from Translink, which is dragging its heels.

Phase 3 should be to extend the streetcar line up along the Arbutus Corridor, down along the CPR right of way along marine drive, connecting the East Fraserlands development in the process, and terminating at New Westminster Quay.

This would provide a critical east-west link along the Fraser River and connect the Canada Line to the Expo-Millennium line without the need to basically go downtown to Broadway to cross over.

As far as building up the regional mass transport network this would fill a gaping whole. Also, because there is so little population density along Marine Drive, save for the 10K people that the East Fraser Lands development will have upon build out in a decade, the route connecting the Canada Line to the Expo/Millennium Line would be quite quick, think B-Line without traffic.

Also, compared to the other mode of mass transit, the street car network would be cheap. As far as cost-benefit ratios go and neighbourhood friendliness to mass transit infrastructure, the streetcar cannot be beat.


Image c/o City of Vancouver http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engs...tcar/index.htm

[trofirhen]

^^^^^^^^^^
and three cheers more!

My only concern about the tramwy is on places where, at grade, it would cut through a number of important arterial roads, such as going south to the Arbutus cut.
Is it possible, though buit largely at grade, it could dip underground in places where a smoother, grade-seperated crossing would be better-adapted?

[xd_1771]

^ It would add cost, but absolutely. There are a few places it'd be a good idea, particularly as the line hits Kerrisdale. An above-grade station is also a possibility.

I have a number of gripes about the phase 3 idea though. For one, it had better be certain that the rolling stock is capable of 80-90km/h running for the extension onto this segment(many tram stock doesn't do >70km/h), especially given that such a line would be limited to a regional function making speed very important. Trolley lines would need to be extended/reorganized at more cost, and the line would need to detour in some segments (i.e. to connect with Marine Dr Station and the Knight Bridge exchange) which'd hurt the travel time aspect and require investment at a higher cost per segment than simply building on the rail line. There's also the engineering required for a big and high elevated section at the eastern terminus, as connecting the extension to 22nd St and its exchange would be pretty much a requirement.

I liked the idea too at one point, but I reckon that depending on the traveller, the money might be better spent on transit priority upgrades on the Hwy 91 corridor for express buses, as well as improving 100 service.

The rail tracks down there are still largely used by local freight, so trying to organize the service as a TramTrain would be a hassle given the inevitable frequency and scheduling limits and/or additional investment to create dual/passing track segments as necessary.

[spm2013]

Reference on that North Van supermall:

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/1910...ml?mobile=true

Think it's been delayed since they've been asked to incorporate a residential component.

Seymour Creek Redevelopment, North Vancouver


For some time, a retail shopping centre has been proposed for parcels of land on the northern portion of Seymour Creek IR No. 2. Since there are a number of new residential developments proposed and/or underway on lands close to the Seymour Reserve (across the highway on Fern Street, for example), additional work is now being undertaken to determine if it would be possible to add a residential component to the commercial retail units already proposed. This work could be used to revise the proposed development plan. Once this work is complete, an update will be provided to membership.

http://www.squamish.net/government/d...d-development/

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Klazu

For viewing convenience. I don't see the point of the 2002 proposal. Also all those proposals with tunnel head in the open water would have looked horrible.


http://www.6717000.com/blog/2002/02/...s-resurfacing/

i think the 2002 proposal is a good idea.

if it were up to me i would like to see it being 6 lanes wide. the reasoning for this is as follows;

South of Harbour (Vancouver)
- 4(2N;2S) through lanes completely freeway style. 80-100km/h.
- the current viaducts would loose the 4 lane connection to Prior Street and would be the tunnel entrance curving underground to Main Street and under the harbour.
- 2(1N;1S) feeder lanes just north of E Hastings connecting with Main Street. giving access to the tunnel from Main Street and E Hastings.

this means the viaducts would be turned into a 80-100km/h speed limit and they would be used as intended as a freeway into downtown. this would give the tunnel direct and quick access to downtown from the north shore, all freeway speeds for quick movement of people.

North of Harbour (North Shore)
- 4(2N;2S) lanes would meet up with the Upper Levels
- an interchange of some sort at the Upper Levels so people could keep doing the freeway speeds right onto the freeway.
- 2(1N;1S) feeder lanes would connect with Taylor Way just south of Marine Drive. giving access to the tunnel from Taylor Way and Marine Drive.

Lions Gate Bridge
- the 3 lanes become 2 lanes (1N;1S)
- the right or left most lane because a separated bike lane similar to what has been built in downtown Vancouver. this would continue all the way to Cardero Street. (with no traffic over the Lions Gate Bridge, Georgia Street west of Cardero can be thinned creating more green space.)
- remaining 2 lanes would be for buses and emergency vehicles only.
- the bridge is now only for buses, emergency vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, and any other non-vehicle traffic.

[trofirhen]

Would this mean that any private vehicles crossing >< downtown to North Shore would need to go down to the Prior Street / former viaduct entrance to the tunnel to cross Burrard Inlet, and vice versa? Also, is 4 lanes enough? I would have though 6 would be better.

[moosejaw]

the 2002 option would be great because it would eliminate downtown as a commuting corridor. It would bypass the city center(centre) like in other cities. Another benefit would make stanley park as a true park and not as a throughway like its being used now. If someone from the north shore wants to go downtown they will simply have to enter downtown from the east instead of the west. Being that the west side is more residential, it might work out better for them and might work out better for the whistler bound travellers.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

the 2002 option would be great because it would eliminate downtown as a commuting corridor. It would bypass the city center(centre) like in other cities. Another benefit would make stanley park as a true park and not as a throughway like its being used now. If someone from the north shore wants to go downtown they will simply have to enter downtown from the east instead of the west. Being that the west side is more residential, it might work out better for them and might work out better for the whistler bound travellers.

Thank you. When you put it that way, it makes a whole lot more sense.
Something I'd like to raise here nevertheless. The first is that I think 4 lanes is too narrow, and
does not project far enough into the future growth of both the NS and Whistler areas, (plus BC Ferry traffic) and the inexorable increase in vehicle traffic.
This tunnel, in my opinion, should be 6 lanes, absolutely.
(Also, love to see a possible extra track space in the middle for eventual rrt, but I know that's asking for too much; money wise, engineering-wise, construction-time wise. Too bad.)
Still, though, a good option ..... if built 6 lanes.

[twoNeurons]

Let's be honest here. Growth on the North Shore will be FAR eclipsed by growth south of downtown.

6-lanes just isn't necessary. If, in the future, it becomes necessary... the city will be big enough that either re-opening the Lion's Gate with a tunnel under Stanley Park as a relief measure could be easily doable. That or a rapid transit over the Lion's Gate or a tunnel.

The nice thing about growth on the North Shore is that it will likely be concentrated near the shore line, which makes it easier to serve with a transit line. They're not going be building condos up the mountain.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The nice thing about growth on the North Shore is that it will likely be concentrated near the shore line, which makes it easier to serve with a transit line. They're not going be building condos up the mountain.

Have you actually looked at the North Shore mountains?

Short of a funicular, some of those developments are pretty much impossible to serve with any sort of rail transit.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Let's be honest here. Growth on the North Shore will be FAR eclipsed by growth south of downtown.

6-lanes just isn't necessary. If, in the future, it becomes necessary... the city will be big enough that either re-opening the Lion's Gate with a tunnel under Stanley Park as a relief measure could be easily doable. That or a rapid transit over the Lion's Gate or a tunnel.

The nice thing about growth on the North Shore is that it will likely be concentrated near the shore line, which makes it easier to serve with a transit line. They're not going be building condos up the mountain.

Are you sure that what you are suggesting isn't costly infrastructure? I would have though it would be better to do it right the first time, with 6 lanes.
If you re-open the Lion's Gate for vehicular traffic in the future, there will be a Chernobyl-style uproar.
And if you build another tunnel crossing under Burrard Inlet, that's a whole other new project with a hefty price tag.
I'd rather be proactive and do it right the first time - with 6 lanes.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Would this mean that any private vehicles crossing >< downtown to North Shore would need to go down to the Prior Street / former viaduct entrance to the tunnel to cross Burrard Inlet, and vice versa? Also, is 4 lanes enough? I would have though 6 would be better.

pretty much, yes. instead of going west over the bridge they go east to go through the tunnel. it may be a little bit more in KM's but odds are a lot less in time. it is a trade off since i really think it would need to be a freeway style with high speed limits. plus then Stanley park can stop having a massive street going through it which is always a nice thing.

going north requires heading east out of downtown, going over the Georgia Viaduct. going south means you would come across the Dunsmuir Viaduct going west.

the whole tunnel would be 6 lanes under the Harbour but they would end at E Cordova in Vancouver and Taylor Way on the North Shore. become 4 lanes over the viaducts and up to connect with the Upper Levels Highway. since not everyone will be wanting to go into downtown from the north shore or heading to the Upper Levels Highway. i think the 4 lanes with the viaducts should be enough to get people in and out of downtown since they are very much enough as of now.

the viaducts would remained almost unchanged really except they go into a tunnel instead of Prior Street.

having a skytrain connection going through the tunnel would also be amazing, but if not I'm sure the Iron-workers Memorial Bridge could handle it just as well.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

pretty much, yes. instead of going west over the bridge they go east to go through the tunnel. it may be a little bit more in KM's but odds are a lot less in time. it is a trade off since i really think it would need to be a freeway style with high speed limits. plus then Stanley park can stop having a massive street going through it which is always a nice thing.

going north requires heading east out of downtown, going over the Georgia Viaduct. going south means you would come across the Dunsmuir Viaduct going west.

the whole tunnel would be 6 lanes under the Harbour but they would end at E Cordova in Vancouver and Taylor Way on the North Shore. become 4 lanes over the viaducts and up to connect with the Upper Levels Highway. since not everyone will be wanting to go into downtown from the north shore or heading to the Upper Levels Highway. i think the 4 lanes with the viaducts should be enough to get people in and out of downtown since they are very much enough as of now.

the viaducts would remained almost unchanged really except they go into a tunnel instead of Prior Street.

having a skytrain connection going through the tunnel would also be amazing, but if not I'm sure the Iron-workers Memorial Bridge could handle it just as well.

So, you agree 6 lanes!! Good.
And the viaducts remain, having found a real purpose !!
And they go into a tunnel, largely out of people's way.
Cool schema.

[GMasterAres]

I love how "next priorities in the GVRD" always becomes a bunch of people posting about the next 20 projects everyone outside of Vancouver should pay for exclusively inside Vancouver itself.

Streetcars and a line to Stanley Park is really a regional priority? Really? Those are on the regional list around #73 in line imo.