Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit - Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows | BRT/RRT?

[chowhou]

All just election promises, but there's a tiny mention of BIRT on the BC NDP platform they released today:

https://www.bcndp.ca/actionplan#pillar6

Providing more affordable transit options in Metro Vancouver
Completing the Surrey to Langley SkyTrain | Finishing the Broadway Subway | Three new Bus Rapid Transit corridors: Park Royal to Metrotown; Surrey Centre to White Rock; Maple Ridge to Langley | Moving towards SkyTrain or light rail to the North Shore.

Seems like they're confident the North Shore will have some form of steel wheel transit in the coming future.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Who ever said that BRT/RapidBus was the most revenue-neutral part of the bus network? I have extreme doubts that the R2 which is arguably the most suburban RapidBus (The only one to not connect to a Skytrain station) is anywhere near revenue neutral at the moment.

The last time TransLink bothered to run the cost per passenger was six years ago. The 99 and 96 were in 1st and 2nd place ($0.80 and $1.05/boarding); none of the others came close. Granted, many of their riders were likely on U-Passes.

Indeed: the R2's handicapped by being isolated from the rest of the rapid transit network (SeaBus doesn't really count). Once its replacement goes to Brentwood and Metrotown stations, things may change.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The last time TransLink bothered to run the cost per passenger was six years ago. The 99 and 96 were in 1st and 2nd place ($0.80 and $1.05/boarding); none of the others came close. Granted, many of their riders were likely on U-Passes.

Indeed: the R2's handicapped by being isolated from the rest of the rapid transit network (SeaBus doesn't really count). Once its replacement goes to Brentwood and Metrotown stations, things may change.

The R2 replaced the 239 which in 2018 numbers was sitting at $2.20 per rider. At least the 130 at the time (which the R2 is set to also replace I guess) was running at $1.71 per rider. And unfortunately, higher frequency and bigger busses means higher operating costs. Unless you think that the ridership gains from service increases outweigh the higher operating costs, doesn't sound very revenue neutral.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The R2 replaced the 239 which in 2018 numbers was sitting at $2.20 per rider. At least the 130 at the time (which the R2 is set to also replace I guess) was running at $1.71 per rider. And unfortunately, higher frequency and bigger busses means higher operating costs. Unless you think that the ridership gains from service increases outweigh the higher operating costs, doesn't sound very revenue neutral.

Again, that's mostly due to the North Shore's virtual isolation. All the other B-Lines/RapidBuses benefit from the network effect except for the R2, and so its demand is artificially low.

Never said it was cheap, I said it was revenue neutral - high cost, high income. The only other lines that cost less than a dollar per boarding are the SkyTrains, and those actually turn a profit.

[jollyburger]

Another build Skytrain and don't bother with BRT opinion piece from a SFU researcher

https://www.nsnews.com/opinion/opinion-l...on-for-north-shore-rapid-transit-9643033

Until we see a concrete vision of the BRT plan (ie will it eat up that many resources/funding for Skytrain) then I still see it as the natural stepping stone. The big problem with BRT might be how do you do a BRT and then run a Skytrain guideway along that route (North Shore will also be all tunneled from Phibbs to Park Royal??)

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Another build Skytrain and don't bother with BRT opinion piece from a SFU researcher

https://www.nsnews.com/opinion/opinion-l...on-for-north-shore-rapid-transit-9643033

Until we see a concrete vision of the BRT plan (ie will it eat up that many resources/funding for Skytrain) then I still see it as the natural stepping stone. The big problem with BRT might be how do you do a BRT and then run a Skytrain guideway along that route (North Shore will also be all tunneled from Phibbs to Park Royal??)

A skytrain would most likely be elevated along Low Level, just like how it is along New Westminster

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Another build Skytrain and don't bother with BRT opinion piece from a SFU researcher

https://www.nsnews.com/opinion/opinion-l...on-for-north-shore-rapid-transit-9643033

Until we see a concrete vision of the BRT plan (ie will it eat up that many resources/funding for Skytrain) then I still see it as the natural stepping stone. The big problem with BRT might be how do you do a BRT and then run a Skytrain guideway along that route (North Shore will also be all tunneled from Phibbs to Park Royal??)

Unfortunately that SFU researcher advocates for non-grade separated rail, which is just doomed from the get-go when the grade he doesn't want to separate from is constant gridlock during rush hours.

[BaddieB]

As a society, we need to start ostracizing people who propose LRT. I don't think any of these LRT advocates actually use transit on a daily basis. Spending as much on a worse slower service deserves harsh mockery.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

As a society, we need to start ostracizing people who propose LRT. I don't think any of these LRT advocates actually use transit on a daily basis. Spending as much on a worse slower service deserves harsh mockery.

Ya it's a bit looney tunes:

" I also advised our leaders to consider running the line one block of south of Marine Drive and Hastings Street to maximize operational efficiency, to create new low rise affordable housing on 15th Street and Pender Street, respectively (as North Van City did on East Third), and to avoid never-ending battles associated with the removal of traffic and parking lanes along the main arterials (which will hinder any BRT plan)."

However "opposing LRT" seems dramatic. Isn't the REM in Montreal LRT?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

However "opposing LRT" seems dramatic. Isn't the REM in Montreal LRT?

If the REM is LRT, then the Skytrain is LRT. The REM is grade separated and automated, the big difference is that the Skytrain tends to be elevated/tunneled while the REM is mostly at-grade, but in its own ROW.

I think we'd all support an REM-like system; It's a system like the CTrain that needs to be avoided.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Ya it's a bit looney tunes:

" I also advised our leaders to consider running the line one block of south of Marine Drive and Hastings Street to maximize operational efficiency, to create new low rise affordable housing on 15th Street and Pender Street, respectively (as North Van City did on East Third), and to avoid never-ending battles associated with the removal of traffic and parking lanes along the main arterials (which will hinder any BRT plan)."

However "opposing LRT" seems dramatic. Isn't the REM in Montreal LRT?

Originally Posted by chowhou

If the REM is LRT, then the Skytrain is LRT. The REM is grade separated and automated, the big difference is that the Skytrain tends to be elevated/tunneled while the REM is mostly at-grade, but in its own ROW.

I think we'd all support an REM-like system; It's a system like the CTrain that needs to be avoided.

From a pure railroading definition, they're all LRT as they're not heavy rail rolling stock. If you cannot intermix your train with freight trains, it's always technically light rail.

Giving streetcars the label of "LRT" during the 2000s/2010s is what has lead to the aversion for the label "LRT", particularly within Metro Vancouver as it was obvious to anyone that the "Surrey LRT" was really just the Surrey Streetcar.

If it's a streetcar/tram, call it a streetcar/tram. Otherwise, it needs to be grade separated for it to be a functional LRT system like the Skytrain or REM or Ontario Line etc.

Ultimately, I think the majority of people, especially on this forum, want to see a grade separated solution that has comparable frequency and capacity to the existing Skytrain system. Whether that's labelled LRT or not is irrelevant.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

As a society, we need to start ostracizing people who propose LRT. I don't think any of these LRT advocates actually use transit on a daily basis. Spending as much on a worse slower service deserves harsh mockery.

I need to warn you against proposing to ostracize anyone, no matter how much it feels like minds can't be changed and some of the same people go around in circles with these same ideas. (You can trust me on this one because I have had some experience fighting LRT proposals here )

Don't name and shame. Instead, fight back with facts.

If you do look at the facts, by which I mean looking at the region's current elevated SkyTrain project (the SLS) and then every other currently proposed LRT in the country, the LRT projects have tended to actually more expensive (per km) than the SLS. The only ones that aren't are barely (if at all) meeting the criteria for "rapid transit".

The tides have changed. LRT has always been pushed as a better-value proposition to the idea of urban rail rapid transit, but that is often no longer the case. It's really not clear to me if there will be a good case for surface LRT in this region moving forward, at least not as our "rapid transit" network.

[Migrant_Coconut]

At any rate, this isn't the first time the SFU guy's made this pitch.

It goes without saying that it'll keep falling on deaf ears until we're actually ready to build the Purple Line.

[griswold]

Is there even any room for elevated skytrain from Phibbs to Park Royal? They'll probably have to tunnel most if not all of that route. Either way they should have started building this 10 years ago.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by griswold

Is there even any room for elevated skytrain from Phibbs to Park Royal? They'll probably have to tunnel most if not all of that route. Either way they should have started building this 10 years ago.

I have a hard time seeing how an elevated guideway works since it's barely five lanes across for most of the expected route and a lot of those sections have newer buildings so I doubt they'll be able to expropriate some land to make it wider.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by griswold

Is there even any room for elevated skytrain from Phibbs to Park Royal? They'll probably have to tunnel most if not all of that route. Either way they should have started building this 10 years ago.

Phibbs to Queensbury is pretty trivial. Park Royal to around Pemberton isn't too difficult either. Everything in between is definitely tunnel territory.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

At any rate, this isn't the first time the SFU guy's made this pitch.

It goes without saying that it'll keep falling on deaf ears until we're actually ready to build the Purple Line.

The fact that someone at a university, a supposed professional, is proposing stuff like thus solidifies my belief that city planners are no more knowing of their field than your average urban enthusiast.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

The fact that someone at a university, a supposed professional, is proposing stuff like thus solidifies my belief that city planners are no more knowing of their field than your average urban enthusiast.

He's not a city planner, he's a geographer whose work reads exactly as if it was written by an average (but not very informed) urban enthusiast. Just like Patrick Condon is a landscape architect, not a transportation planner.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Ya it's a bit looney tunes:
..... However "opposing LRT" seems dramatic. Isn't the REM in Montreal LRT?

LRT itself is usually along the lines of what they have in Seattle: at-grade rail that requires working with traffic flow and traffic lights. *The REM in Montreal is called a 'light metro,' grade-separated like Skytrain.
https://rem.info/en/news/goodbye-grade-crossings-new-infrastructures-coming-rem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_express_m%C3%A9tropolitain#Main_line

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

The fact that someone at a university, a supposed professional, is proposing stuff like thus solidifies my belief that city planners are no more knowing of their field than your average urban enthusiast.

What CC said: academics =/= planners. Note how Vancouver's now-endangered streetcar craze was led by Patrick Condon (a UBC landscaping professor), and most of the CoV planning department ignored him.