HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1781  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 12:53 AM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by cganuelas1995 View Post
I'd also imagine the unlikely event of a train derailment would rupture the tunnel.
I don't agree. A floating tunnel could easily be designed to handle a train derailment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1782  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 9:30 AM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
I think there are examples of floating underwater tunnels although they are not many. I imagine that a ship dragging an anchor would be very bad.
Yes, although I was thinking more of a submerged bridge idea rather than relying on buoyancy. Using the depth graphic posted recently as an example, a tunnel would be constructed underground in the blue areas directly in line between Waterfront and Lonsdale Quay, emerging from the white and crossing the black area in the centre on an underwater bridge before going underground again on the north side.

Last edited by Tvisforme; Jun 28, 2019 at 10:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1783  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 5:25 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
Yes, although I was thinking more of a submerged bridge idea rather than relying on buoyancy. Using the depth graphic posted recently as an example, a tunnel would be constructed underground in the blue areas directly in line between Waterfront and Lonsdale Quay, emerging from the white and crossing the black area in the center on an underwater bridge before going underground again on the north side.
At a depth of 30m, a 30m single span would be subject to a load of 5 thousand metric tons of weight without any counteracting buoyancy. The distance across the grey deep area is way greater than 30m. Any floating tunnel (if even possible) would have to incorporate elements that increase it's buoyancy to be remotely feasible. Also, if these areas are a result of tidal scour, as MC supposed, then I would imagine that these water depths could also see high lateral forces.

Now this supposes that you can even construct a straight line underground to the tunnel points within the appropriate grades. We already know that you cannot do this from my previous post back in March 2017: http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7728165&postcount=16282
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1784  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2019, 6:21 PM
theho theho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12
Yet More fantasy

Do I get some sort of reward for having massive intervals between posts?

Anyways check out this Google map here

Preamble
This map is a collection of ideas that I’ve built up over the last decade. Somethings are more thought out then others. Sharing this out as it might inspire other people. This is not meant to be complete build out or anything like that.

UBC line
Not so much fantasy anymore

Canada Line
I have held that it would make sense to one day terminate this Line at Williams and 3rd. There is already a fair amount of density along 3rd. Also like the idea of Meeting a Tram/LRT.

Steveston - Ladner LRT
This line provides feeder service that could also be extended down towards Tsawwassen. Branding the line around Heritage / Tourism could be interesting. (Maybe some of the old interurbans could be coupled for special events / weekends?)

North Shore Line
I think it is acceptable to not have a direct rail connection into the downtown. In the future the population centre of the lower mainland is going to be closer to Metrotown. A crossing at 2nd narrows can allow good connections towards the south east. Then line then makes it makes it way over to Joyce and heads west. This 41st segment provides a good connection from the North west of the city to Richmond and YVR. It makes Rupert a possible major transfer station.

HSR
This where we get into major fantasy. This is a possible HSR alignment down to seattle. I think it is a bit different as it travels all the way out towards Abottsford before crossing the border. It calls the bluff(?) that the Port Mann can actually support rail service. An advantage of this routing is that the alignment can double up as a commuter rail route. For commuter stops something like Pacific center (though if you want to cough up a couple extra billion maybe Waterfront), Commercial Broadway, Rupert, Sperling, (maybe Braid though awkward), 104th and 160 st, Carvolth Exchange, beyond here my area knowledge drops off and then finally in Abbotsford. Stations with border control maybe Pacific Centre and in Abbotsford? For the HSR in the states, by going that far East in Canada you can actually pick up a lot of existing rail right of ways down towards Seattle. It is only once you hit Everett that major tunneling would probably be necessary.

Surrey Line
Very similar to what is generally explored except for the little bit of length that allows it to connect to the HSR/Commuter route

Arbutus-Hastings-Edmonds
The Hasting segment is the easy to understand. The segment that connects down towards Edmonds is a bit weird. I think there are pockets which are suitable for TOD but otherwise the segment is about making sure there is some redundancy north south in the North Vancouver <-> Burnaby <-> New Westminster <-> Surrey axis. The arbutus-waterfront segment provides access from the west end and also serves as a relief / alternative to the Canada Line. Finally the Bridgeport to King George segments is a bit crazy but it is about more reasonable access to YVR for south of fraser. Mostly following the 91a aligment with no stations might also make this segment quite fast. It also allows a more direct connection between Richmond and Surrey in addition to potentially providing relief on the expo line for South of Fraser commutes heading to the Broadway Corridor / Downtown.

Island rail or something
Very rough sketch of where service on the island could go. I did not put any thought into the alignment. Main point is that it could connect up with a passenger ferry.

Passenger Ferry
This little segment is some sort of people mover or extension of the ubc line that serves a passenger ferry terminal off of Tower Beach. I realize that it is much more likely that any passenger ferry service is going to terminate at Waterfront but wanted to throw this down for others to mull over. I think it is worth considering given that it actually reduces the length of the crossing by a considerable distance and avoids entering harbour control.

Enjoy!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1785  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2019, 12:20 AM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by theho View Post
This map is a collection of ideas that I’ve built up over the last decade. Somethings are more thought out then others. Sharing this out as it might inspire other people. This is not meant to be complete build out or anything like that.
Did you mean most of these to be rail lines? If you did at least some of them would have to be in a tunnel. For example the section from Hastings down to Edmonds - that travels through SFHs and right next to both Deer Lake and Burnaby Lake parks. There is no way that would be allowed on or above ground.

Surrey would have a conniption if HSR was that far away from Surrey Central. Vancouver's not likely to be happy about it either. The best compromise I've seen is to send it to the airport instead.

The North Shore already has the Seabus to downtown Van, which makes more sense than rail. I also prefer running it across Second Narrows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1786  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2019, 5:58 AM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
One could probably guess that my opinion in regards to your North Shore Line is that a Lonsdale-Commercial Drive Line would be both cheaper and more successful in terms of ridership than a second narrows crossing.

I do agree however, that it is acceptable to not connect to downtown via RRT from the north shore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1787  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2019, 5:58 AM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
I think there are examples of floating underwater tunnels although they are not many. I imagine that a ship dragging an anchor would be very bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
At a depth of 30m, a 30m single span would be subject to a load of 5 thousand metric tons of weight without any counteracting buoyancy. The distance across the grey deep area is way greater than 30m. Any floating tunnel (if even possible) would have to incorporate elements that increase it's buoyancy to be remotely feasible. Also, if these areas are a result of tidal scour, as MC supposed, then I would imagine that these water depths could also see high lateral forces.

Now this supposes that you can even construct a straight line underground to the tunnel points within the appropriate grades. We already know that you cannot do this from my previous post back in March 2017: http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7728165&postcount=16282
It's probably just a (transit) fantasy anyway... just for clarity, though, I was talking about an underwater bridge-like structure, not a floating tunnel. As in, if the water were removed, the subway tube would still be fully supported by said underwater structure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1788  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 2:30 AM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
It's probably just a (transit) fantasy anyway... just for clarity, though, I was talking about an underwater bridge-like structure, not a floating tunnel. As in, if the water were removed, the subway tube would still be fully supported by said underwater structure.
I think you may have misunderstood my last post. Any "underwater bridge like structure" would fail without any form of buoyancy (aka. flotation). Any form of "underwater bridge like tunnel" must float (and therefore would be a floating tunnel).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1789  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2019, 7:20 PM
goldenboi's Avatar
goldenboi goldenboi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 133
I made a mock map of a B-Line-style bus route in my hometown Abbtosford. Transit is essentially useless there, but I think this line could do really well. It would essentially form a backbone for the transit system. There is already a plan in place to densify this corridor, so an eventual upgrade to rail wouldn't be out of the picture.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1790  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2019, 10:08 PM
sweetnhappy sweetnhappy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Central Alberta, formerly BC Upper Fraser Valley
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboi View Post
I made a mock map of a B-Line-style bus route in my hometown Abbtosford. Transit is essentially useless there, but I think this line could do really well. It would essentially form a backbone for the transit system. There is already a plan in place to densify this corridor, so an eventual upgrade to rail wouldn't be out of the picture.

Not bad, but you didn't include a stop at the primary exchange in Abbotsford (Bourquin). It's right in the middle of the Ware and Gladwin stops and it would be essential for connecting people to/from other local routes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1791  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2019, 11:27 PM
Sheba Sheba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboi View Post
I made a mock map of a B-Line-style bus route in my hometown Abbtosford. Transit is essentially useless there, but I think this line could do really well. It would essentially form a backbone for the transit system. There is already a plan in place to densify this corridor, so an eventual upgrade to rail wouldn't be out of the picture.
Is there anywhere we can see a map of the existing bus routes? It's hard to tell if this is a good idea without knowing the routes already in place.

The area looks really low density so I can't see BC Transit wanting to install rail tracks this century. Depending on the traffic, dedicated bus lanes are possible. The spacing of the stops is pretty large for the most part.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1792  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 2:58 AM
Tvisforme's Avatar
Tvisforme Tvisforme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Metro Vancouver
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by waves View Post
I think you may have misunderstood my last post. Any "underwater bridge like structure" would fail without any form of buoyancy (aka. flotation). Any form of "underwater bridge like tunnel" must float (and therefore would be a floating tunnel).
Sorry, I must be missing something basic here, but why would it need to have buoyancy if it is supported by a full bridge structure designed for underwater use?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1793  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 3:34 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,663
It would have buoyancy because the tunnels would be filled with air
- unless you have the trains filled with water and all the passengers wearing scuba gear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1794  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 4:53 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
Sorry, I must be missing something basic here, but why would it need to have buoyancy if it is supported by a full bridge structure designed for underwater use?
I think what waves was getting at in the post before that one is that water pressure is much heavier than air pressure. With 5,000 metric tons of pressure on the "bridge," conventional supports aren't going to cut it, and anything that can is likely too expensive to be practical.

Me, I'm more worried about the logistical and financial complications of building a non-floating railway bridge 22 metres underwater.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1795  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 5:57 AM
scottN scottN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
I think what waves was getting at in the post before that one is that water pressure is much heavier than air pressure. With 5,000 metric tons of pressure on the "bridge," conventional supports aren't going to cut it, and anything that can is likely too expensive to be practical.

Me, I'm more worried about the logistical and financial complications of building a non-floating railway bridge 22 metres underwater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tvisforme View Post
Sorry, I must be missing something basic here, but why would it need to have buoyancy if it is supported by a full bridge structure designed for underwater use?
The water pressure doesn't weigh directly on the underwater bridge. What it does do is make the immersed tube much heavier than an ordinary bridge deck would normally be. The tube has to be strong enough not to be crushed by the water pressure, and the deeper in the water the tube is immersed the stronger it needs to be. The buoyancy of the tube can be used to counteract the weight of the tube (or nullify it entirely in the floating tunnel design).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1796  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 6:22 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottN View Post
The water pressure doesn't weigh directly on the underwater bridge. What it does do is make the immersed tube much heavier than an ordinary bridge deck would normally be. The tube has to be strong enough not to be crushed by the water pressure, and the deeper in the water the tube is immersed the stronger it needs to be. The buoyancy of the tube can be used to counteract the weight of the tube (or nullify it entirely in the floating tunnel design).
Good thing I'm not an engineer. Thanks for the physics lesson.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1797  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 7:47 AM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottN View Post
The water pressure doesn't weigh directly on the underwater bridge. What it does do is make the immersed tube much heavier than an ordinary bridge deck would normally be. The tube has to be strong enough not to be crushed by the water pressure, and the deeper in the water the tube is immersed the stronger it needs to be. The buoyancy of the tube can be used to counteract the weight of the tube (or nullify it entirely in the floating tunnel design).
This is a better and more correct explanation than I gave.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1798  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 6:30 PM
scryer scryer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,964
My Fantasy Updated





Transit Fantasy 2019 Update

When I had posted my previous transit fantasy, I was fully expecting that the Surrey LRT was going to happen. Well, that didn’t happen. And thank goodness it didn’t! Overall my vision for the city has changed and now I no longer want to resurrect the Evergreen line ever since Waves made some revolutionary posts about the topography of the region, and the feasibility about building under the Burrard Inlet. And this was just coincidentally timed with the consideration of extending the Skytrain line down King George.
I have a new fantasy for you!

Expo Line

I know exactly what you’re thinking: Expo Line to the north shore? WTF? After reading Waves’ post about increasing the tunnel and station depth dramatically with a line heading north to cross underground adjacent to the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge; I thought to myself it could be possible to increase the underground depth if we extended the Expo line east, and then have it make a hard left turn to make the same crossing.

The eastern extension would serve East Vancouver along Hastings street. It would all be underground before hooking north and crossing into North Vancouver where it would then head west to West Vancouver. All of this, except for maybe some portions into West Vancouver would all be underground. North and West Van have complicated topography and a busy Urban network that it would almost be more complicated to make the Skytrain surface until it gets past Taylor Way on Marine Drive.

The connection to the North Shore will serve as the perfect relief for the Sea Bus. The Sea Bus would technically be the quicker connection to Waterfront Station. However if someone had just missed the Sea Bus, they could catch the Skytrain heading to Waterfront and get there sooner than they would have, if they had waited for the next Sea Bus to dock. This would provide relief. Also there would be folks that would prefer to stay on the Skytrain until it reaches Waterfront also providing relief; for example, people travelling from Park Royal. The fact remains that most people commuting to Vancouver are commuting to downtown Vancouver and since it isn’t likely that we will get a Skytrain directly across to the North Shore from Waterfront station.

And then we all know about the obvious extension into Langley.

Millennium Line

I still think that the Millennium line is a great solution to a lot of problems in the future. Which is why I have extended it eastwards hitting the southern parts of Vancouver. Then eventually it crosses over the river, over Annacis Island and then finally connecting in Surrey and at the Guildford Town Centre.

This extension eastwards terminating at the Guildford Town Centre will provide an East-West rapid line for Surrey along its busiest E-W corridors. And it will more importantly serve as a relief line to the Expo and Canada lines by taking University students/workers off of those lines that travel from the South of Fraser municipalities.

The next problem that the Millennium line will solve is reducing congestion from Maple Ridge commuters with its connection to Pitt Meadows North of the Fraser river.

King George Line

Represented by the Red line, the King George Line serves the people of White Rock and connects them to the rest of Surrey. To me this makes a lot of sense to have in Surrey as we are anticipating that Surrey will soon become the largest metropolitan city out of Metro Vancouver eventually. Every city has a busy N-S route and for Surrey it is KGB. This is very obvious and this Skytrain route will connect Newton and White Rock to Surrey Central, and eventually to the Guildford Town Centre.

Canada Line

This underbuilt line will need to fix its mistakes that the NIMBY’s crippled way back when before it moves anywhere beyond Richmond-Brighouse. Firstly we will need to double track the line after Aberdeen Station and fix Richmond-Brighouse Station to make it a more accessible and convenient station.
After we correct our errors with the infinite imaginary funds that I am envisioning, then we can move onto extending the Skytrain throughout Richmond. Elevated all the way through, this line will make its way to the Tsawwassen Ferry terminal, serving the people of Ladner along the way.

At the airport, a new station will be made as the terminals have expanded at YVR. For me, it is important to keep in mind that one of the most popular transit destinations will continue to expand and we will need to update the infrastructure to support it.

In my fantasy I am imagining that we are really going to start feeling the pains of the underbuilt Canada Line when the Millennium line extends to UBC. Therefore I also think that the COV will be desperate to find some sort of a solution. One of which is a new Skytrain relief line…

Main Street Relief Line

This relief line, represented by the colour orange, is brought to you by the inefficiencies of the Canada Line! The idea behind this line is that it uses the same size of platforms that the Expo and Millennium lines use and that it uses train stock for 4-6 car trains.

Before I had always vouched for extending ALL of the Canada Line platforms to incorporate longer trains and we all know that that the billions spent re-doing all of the stations would probably equal out to the same price of a relief line. Now what if I told you that if we just extended 5 Canada Line Stations (Bridgeport, Sea Island Centre, Templeton, (Future) Domestic Terminal, YVR Terminus) that we could also use this relief line as a relief to the airport traffic? Outside of Downtown Vancouver, the two most popular transit destinations are UBC and YVR Airport and the Main Street line would meet that demand.

In terms of the engineering, unfortunately I think that most of this line would have to go underground along Main. In my fantasy I made sure NOT to connect it at Marine Drive so that we wouldn’t have to re-do 6 Canada line stations. It only surfaces and connect to the Canada line just before Bridgeport station. But before we see this Skytrain relief line, the COV will probably build another relief line…

Arbutus Greenway LRT

…Let me introduce you to the Arbutus Greenway LRT. In my fantasy I am thinking about why we are building transit solutions. This solution is a desperate answer to the over-crowding on the Canada Line (which is a problem we face TODAY) combined with the Millennium extension to UBC.

Seeing the Arbutus Greenway as a quick and cheaper solution, the COV will look to get this thing built ASAP after the Millennium extension starts running (and maybe even before then!) since it will be faster and cheaper than a full-blown relief line. The Arbutus Greenway will be built along the Arbutus Greenway which is already an active transit path, and it will integrate itself appropriately with bike lanes and walking paths.

The fantasy part really kicks in when this line crosses into the downtown core and travels north on Granville street. Eventually I would like to see it connect at Waterfront station, underground, in a single track, single platform Spanish-solution with the Canada Line terminus at Waterfront Station. But I am willing to settle for a similar connection at the Vancouver City Centre station.

At the end of the day, this line does get used relatively frequently as people will use a different transportation method if they find another route is too crowded. For example, plenty of people from Port Moody still use the WCE even though it’s more expensive. But once this LRT line has been built, it will not be needing any further expansions anytime soon.

W. 4th LRT

For me LRT should be a means as to address capacity. A lot of times I agree with the fact that we can achieve the same solutions with articulated buses. But when we get in bed with LRT, we may as well continue to use the technology to our advantage which is why the COV made the W. 4th and Granville Island LRT lines: to try and “sell” that LRT is still useful.
The W. 4th LRT is designed to be a “relief” line to the Millennium line by connecting to UBC. Yes, it will slower and mixed with traffic along W. 4th. Which is why I am using the term “relief” very loosely since I personally feel that a proper relief line uses grade-separated technology.

But the main advantage here is the connection to Stanley Park and to Waterfront Station. This eliminates the need to transfer trains at Broadway-City Hall for those that are trying to travel to UBC from downtown Vancouver and would encourage people to use this line for the convenience of not having to switch trains. When this train approaches Waterfront Station, it heads underground and connects to a platform concourse that would also connect people to the Main Street Line and Expo Line. From there it will continue heading west, maybe even surfacing to terminate at the edge of Stanley Park. It would get used fairly often since it passes through Kitsilano’s W. 4th Street and through Olympic Village.

West End/Granville Island LRT

This LRT gets built as a means to just keep the West End quiet about not getting rapid transit built. Honestly speaking the West End is incredibly walkable; I even consider the entire downtown peninsula walkable. But I digress..

The West End LRT is built to handle larger capacities and to take passengers to other connections in Metro Vancouver. However because the West End and downtown is so dense (which is a good thing!), there is a lot of questions as to how the West End portion of the route would be designed. The most LRT friendly corridors I found were along Pacific Street. And the only real connection to the other rapid transit infrastructure would be at Yaletown-Roundhouse Station and at Olympic Station where it shares the same tracks as the W. 4th LRT.

When this line approaches English Bay, it will go underground for two stations, terminating at Stanley Park. Since this line shares the same tracks as the W. 4th LRT as it passes through Olympic Village, the only construction would be along Pacific Street, the two underground stations, and then the last station on Granville Island. This line would end up being mostly used by tourists which would actually make this line have a unique business case. Tour Guides could sell packages that take people to eat at Granville Island and then bike along the sea wall all within one day.

SFU Gondola

Moving on from LRT technologies.. Not much needs to be said here. In my fantasy, I just want the Production-Way University Station to have a smooth transition to the Gondola. Most direct and cost-effective route possible.

West Coast Express

You’ve been waiting for it! I think I have figured out how I want the WCE to expand. But before my fantasy happens, we need Translink to buy some tracks first.
Now before you put a gun in your mouth, let me explain my reasoning for why it looks so wonky: I basically don’t know what I am doing. What I want is some extensions that terminate at White Rock, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. What I did was study the tracks and transportation corridors on google-maps so you know that my vision is absolutely un-matched .

My WCE vision is a commuter-rail solution that supports the entire Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver system by giving passengers another transit choice for going to Downtown Vancouver. It does this by reducing the amount of stops to give passengers a faster service than Skytrain while serving communities much further out. All train lines will service each station with one train per hour with a last train leaving Waterfront at midnight. We have to remember that the most popular transit destinations for Metro Vancouver is Downtown.

The WCE-A line will stop at Langley Central (connecting with the Expo Line) and at White Rock (connecting at the King George Line). The WCE-B Line will stop at YXX Airport and at Downtown Abbotsford. The WCE-C line will then stop at Mission, Hatzic, and terminate at Chilliwack.

Cascadia High Speed Rail

And now for the most controversial of them all!

Represented by that obnoxious Pink line, the Cascadia HSR passes through Surrey and then terminates at Waterfront because when we build this, we are going to build it right! Of course I would be willing to settle for a terminus at Pacific Central Station. There was an article about the terminus station possibilities floating somewhere in cyberspace that I can’t find..

Not only will this line bring in billions in revenue but we can also run a local service on it from Surrey to Downtown Vancouver again providing a deluxe commuter-rail solution for Surrey.

Stations

Waterfront Station

Waterfront station would need that mega-face lift that has been floating around here. Only I want it to be better than just some pretty design. In my fantasy, Waterfront station would be equipped with a concourse that allows perfectly coordinated passenger flow for transfers to the Cascadia HSR, Expo Line, Canada Line, Main Street Relief Line, W. 4th Avenue LRT, Arbutus LRT, Seabus, and the WCE. To achieve optimal passenger flow, I would suggest implementing the Spanish solution at every possible platform for easy transfers between different Skytrains.

For example for the Arbutus LRT and Canada Line terminus platforms, you can single-track the Arbutus LRT for its terminus and have it share a platform with outbound Canada Line trains. Another example would be implementing the Spanish solution for the Expo Line and having those platforms share with the Main Street Relief line trains. It would be strategies like this that would make transfers easier and convenient.

Commercial-Broadway Station

The only thing that I would add is a Spanish solution on outbound Expo Line trains. A lot more people will be transferring to the Millennium line at Commercial Broadway when the UBC expansion first opens.

Broadway-City Hall

For this station I would want a Spanish Solution on the Millennium line part (depending on the design of course!) combined with multiple station entrances. If we really want to cheap out, then I would like the other entrance to be diagonally-north from the current Broadway-City Hall station entrance along with a pedestrian scramble.

Bridgeport, Sea Island Centre, Templeton, YVR Domestic (future), YVR Terminus

These stations all need to extend their platforms to accommodate for the longer Main Street Relief trains. After that the YVR terminus needs to be double tracked to include the Main Street Relief terminus trains. Bridgeport station needs to be significantly looked at as it is already a very busy station.

Surrey Central

The Northern entrance upgrades were well appreciated. However this station has a long way to go before it can properly host itself as a nexus for the municipalities south of Fraser. In my fantasy Surrey Central is hosting 3 different skytrain lines on one station. Due to this it will probably need an additional central platform and the infrastructure to support smooth transitions.

Guildford Town Centre

As the new terminus for the Millennium line and for the White Rock line, this station serves an additional purpose of being the connection to the Cascadia HSR. This transit station will sprout TOD in Surrey like never seen before.
__________________
There is a housing crisis, and we simply need to speak up about it.

Pinterest - I use this social media platform to easily add pictures into my posts on this forum. Plus there are great architecture and city photos out there as well.

Last edited by scryer; Jul 20, 2019 at 6:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1799  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2019, 5:11 PM
waves's Avatar
waves waves is offline
waves
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 382
Nice Map! Here are my thoughts:

Expo Line (north shore)

- the inlet depth is about the same north of commercial as it is at second narrows so your line has the option of diving underground sooner if you wanted.
- If you are going to take the line as far east as the second narrows you may as well have it cross above grade east of the bridge and connect through Dollarton where a new OMC can be located. It can dive underground at the 3rd street hill.
- I imagine people at Park Royal likely will still prefer to take the 250 downtown which would be faster than the roundabout way the skytrain takes.
- I find it really hard to see any scenario where the seabus gets eliminated by skytrain in a reasonably efficient manner so I think that planning to maintain seabus service when thinking about a skytrain connection is really important and I am glad to see you have done that.

Millenium Line
- If you are going to go to the effort of getting skytrain to Pitt Meadows, why not tap it the few extra km to terminate in Maple Ridge - you are already 80% there.
- As for the "Marine Dr" Line, I have trouble seeing this line get ridership for it's justification. It travels mostly through SFHs or park or industrial/agriculture.
- Is congestion from Maple Ridge an issue?

King George Line
- It is hard to tell but I assume it terminates at Semiahoo Mall as that makes most sense for a termination point.

Canada Line
- Love seeing it connect to Ladner. I think LRT is more suitable though for Ladner to Tsawwassen. (It can run in the highway median from the ferry, to ladner then run accross to Newton and the King George Line). Lower frequency, larger trains, just as fast and reliable because of few intersections.


Main Street Relief Line
- I really think people are exagerating the "underbuilt-ness". Canada Line still has the capability to triple its ridership from today. The stations need renovations for better passenger flow, but the track itself can handle 15,000 pphpd and thats a lot.
- I highly doubt that a new 22km line would be cheaper than improving passenger flow at stations and building out the station platforms to 50m for full 15,000 line build-out.


Arbutus LRT
- Same comments as above.
- If anything, connection to the airport on the south end makes more sense here if you are considering a relief line.

W. 4th LRT
- Ehh, this line would be expensive and slower than skytrain. People value speed and reliability above all else. LRT, and in this line in particular, lacks both being a non-grade seperated line.

West End/Granville Isl. LRT
- same kind of comment as W.4th
- there are other touristy transportation methods like the mini ferries.

SFU Gondola
- Agreed.

WCE
- There are already tracks that connect Mission to Abbotsford. I think you should rethink your Abbotsfor and Chilliwack extension with this in mind.
- I don't see the value in a long windy WCE route from White Rock to Vancouver, particularly if the King George Line is going to exist.

Cascadia High Speed Rail
- I don't think the route you have is straight enough or fast enough for hsr. Also the highway is already built out, particularly though burnaby, there isn't space to mash a rail line in there.
- One route I actually see a possibility is a cut and cover under Arbutus to an above grade station at templeton, down the shell rail right of way at grade, bored tunnel under boundary bay connecting to the existing amtrack in Blaine: https://drive.google.com/open?id=169Na6TewGAE7PORAYULBdTHe-mlM1dZY&usp=sharing

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1800  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2019, 8:42 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 10,129
Those turns appear to be a little sharp for HSR...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:29 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.