Transit Fantasies

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by waves

That's a lot of work to get it to a station where you need to transfer to get to YVR anyway.

If you're going to force people to get on the Canada line to go to YVR why not make it a more convenient station for the HSR like Bridgeport or Cambie, then you don't need to do that weird double river crossing hard corner.

Also, drop the Delta-Ladner station. This is HSR not commuter rail. Ferry customers can take the express bus to Bridgeport/Templeton.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

That's a lot of work to get it to a station where you need to transfer to get to YVR anyway.

If you're going to force people to get on the Canada line to go to YVR why not make it a more convenient station for the HSR like Bridgeport or Cambie, then you don't need to do that weird double river crossing hard corner.

Also, drop the Delta-Ladner station. This is HSR not commuter rail. Ferry customers can take the express bus to Bridgeport/Templeton.

Personally, I would go with Bridgeport because that has a lot of regional connections

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by scryer

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.

Thanks for the post. One thought - there's no point in even proposing above-ground Skytrain anywhere in West Vancouver. They couldn't even accept additional articulated bus trips, so a massive elevated rail just won't fly.

[waves]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Personally, I would go with Bridgeport because that has a lot of regional connections

You need space to set up Border Security Facilities + Park & Ride options. That was why I thought Templeton would be better suited since it has space to accommodate what I imagine would be the busiest station on the line.

You could have two separate train types run on the track. One for high speed rail with border security between Templeton and Seattle, the other a local train without border security between Waterfront/Templeton/Delta. You can also make the HS rail nexus only pick up only SB and drop off only NB at Delta to make things speedy and quick.

Also, the train has to come to a stop at each station so it won't necessarily be going very fast through north Richmond and those curves. The problem with going straight is that it would likely need to be a bored tunnel. Above ground won't work with the Oak and Arthur Lang in the way.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Thanks for the post. One thought - there's no point in even proposing above-ground Skytrain anywhere in West Vancouver. They couldn't even accept additional articulated bus trips, so a massive elevated rail just won't fly.

nota bene:

there is a west side of vancouver

and a west vancouver next to north van district and north van city - all on the north shore

they are not interchangeable

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

nota bene:

there is a west side of vancouver

and a west vancouver next to north van district and north van city - all on the north shore

they are not interchangeable

Er, Tvisforme was replying to scryer, who specifically mentioned North Van and West Van. Though I'm pretty sure that elevated SkyTrain in either West Van or the West Side won't be an option for the next few decades, for different reasons.

[Tvisforme]

On a SkyTrain-North Shore-related note, I wonder what the cost would be to just build dedicated SkyTrain-capable bridges or tunnels at the First and Second Narrows, then tie them into the existing road networks and use them for multiple RapidBus routes in addition to existing transit service. It would not be inexpensive, but it should be significantly cheaper than building full SkyTrain lines across the inlet and on the North Shore. I can't help but think that transit would benefit significantly from crossing that are free from congestion and accidents, and when demand eventually warrants SkyTrain that portion of the infrastructure would already be in place.

[Brison]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Thanks for the post. One thought - there's no point in even proposing above-ground Skytrain anywhere in West Vancouver. They couldn't even accept additional articulated bus trips, so a massive elevated rail just won't fly.

I don't think it's as unreasonable as you may think. Although NIMBYism played a heavy hand in the West Van B-Line/RapidBus fiasco, it did bring up a fairly solid point that converting one of two lanes on Marine Drive west of Park Royal was a flawed idea. The First Nations reserve encompassing the area is the only big barrier I can think of, as Park Royal management would more than likely welcome SkyTrain with open arms, given the business case.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

On a SkyTrain-North Shore-related note, I wonder what the cost would be to just build dedicated SkyTrain-capable bridges or tunnels at the First and Second Narrows, then tie them into the existing road networks and use them for multiple RapidBus routes in addition to existing transit service.

I could definitely imagine an idea like this being used for both SkyTrain and rail tracks for a potential westward expansion of West Coast Express service and possibly cargo train service, but I'm getting way ahead of myself here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Somehow, I highly doubt TransLink'll be designing a SkyTrain bridge with a span thrice as long and almost twice as high as usual. So what're the hoops they'd have to jump through to make the Lions Gate or Ironworkers' Memorial compatible with a guideway?

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Somehow, I highly doubt TransLink'll be designing a SkyTrain bridge with a span thrice as long and almost twice as high as usual. So what're the hoops they'd have to jump through to make the Lions Gate or Ironworkers' Memorial compatible with a guideway?

I don't know if there's anything they can do for the Lions Gate Bridge due to its age and build; the proposed suicide prevention screens (as on the IM) won't be installed because the structure can't handle the extra wind load. I'd imagine adding a Skytrain guideway would be far heavier than the structure can handle.

Originally Posted by Brison

I don't think it's as unreasonable as you may think. Although NIMBYism played a heavy hand in the West Van B-Line/RapidBus fiasco, it did bring up a fairly solid point that converting one of two lanes on Marine Drive west of Park Royal was a flawed idea. The First Nations reserve encompassing the area is the only big barrier I can think of, as Park Royal management would more than likely welcome SkyTrain with open arms, given the business case.

Park Royal's management might well accept the tracks; the various expansions have shown that they're certainly not too concerned about the area's capacity or the aesthetics of their designs. However, there's not going to be a lot of support from the general public for elevated guideways in either West or North Vancouver.

[Sheba]

This is probably the most appropriate place for this: Take a look inside Kiev's astonishing Soviet-era metro system, home to the deepest subway station in the world

The subway system in Ukraine's capital city is filled with marble, statement lighting, and beautiful artworks.

Kiev's three lines cut across the city, serving its almost 3 million residents, and the system is home to what is claimed to be the world's deepest subway station, almost 350 feet below street level.

The subway carries about 1.3 million people a day and is filled with modern amenities like phone service and information screens.

But much of its beauty dates back to when its first stations opened in 1960, when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union.

Even the plainer stations look nicer than ours...


REUTERS/Gleb Garanich

[logan5]

Stockholm's stations are incredible.













https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreymor...utiful-subway-in-the-world/#7e0e4ceb450f

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

This is probably the most appropriate place for this: Take a look inside Kiev's astonishing Soviet-era metro system, home to the deepest subway station in the world

Even the plainer stations look nicer than ours...

For all the Soviets' faults, they had an infinite public works budget and put it to good use.

[trofirhen]

Looking at Stockholm's amazing subways stations, and Moscow's imperial Stalinist wonders, then yes, Vancouver's do indeed look plain and utilitarian by comparison.
However, for several decades, Stockhom's were functional, tiled stations, much like anywhere else. The Canada Line may be sterile and uninteresting now, but in time it can be upgraded.
The important thing right now is that the subway be there. Aesthetic upgrades can and probably will come as the system matures. Heck, most of Toronto's is still rather sterile / functional.
Montreal did a snazzy job right from the beginning, but that city has style and pizazz in its DNA.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For all the Soviets' faults, they had an infinite public works budget and put it to good use.

On top of that, the Skytrain's original 1980's design was pretty much based on the opposite idea. Heck, all of Expo was.

The 80's in capitalist society was all about mass production based on interchangeable parts. Being as efficient as possible. Maximum reward, minimum cost. Maximum utilitarianism.

To that end, Skytrain was designed to be the mass transit solution for the capitalist masses. Simple, efficient. It could be built rather quickly and provided capacity for growing cities that didn't need a full blown subway. Pretty much most cities in North America.

That's why the original cars are all based on married pair units. Most other systems you need a 6 car subway train, you buy a six car subway train. Skytrain offered flexibility. You might only need 2 now, maybe 6 later. Also, it minimizes downtime: a single car breaks down, you don't need to take a six car train out of service, you still have a 4 car train.

The stations are the same way. Identical. All the parts are the same. Mass produced, efficient. A panel breaks, replace it, you have a warehouse full of them. That's why all the walls were steel mesh. If a degenerate 80's punk youth (and it was worried there would be lots of those) graffitied your station's wall, all you had to do was get a guy in there with a paintbrush and it was gone in 5 minutes. It provided safety (no dark enclosed spaces) while being efficient to maintain.

Expo 86 was the same way. Many of the buildings were mass produced, and were so modular that they were disassembled after Expo. There are still several examples of the buildings still living their second lives. And many of Expo's other attractions were easily assembled and taken apart and reused elsewhere after the event. Even the monorail as far as I know is still at Alton Towers in the UK.

And I think that served us well. The region had fewer than 1.2 million residents then, and had been rather stagnant in population growth since the early 70's. A beautiful system could have left BCers in severe debt for generations. Instead we had a functional transit system that enabled and supported the city to grow.

[CanSpice]

To add to what BCPhil said, public art is seen as a waste by some vocal people like Jordan Bateman, who would love to get on TV again to rail against spending even the smallest amount of money on it.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

On top of that, the Skytrain's original 1980's design was pretty much based on the opposite idea. Heck, all of Expo was.

The 80's in capitalist society was all about mass production based on interchangeable parts. Being as efficient as possible. Maximum reward, minimum cost. Maximum utilitarianism.

To that end, Skytrain was designed to be the mass transit solution for the capitalist masses. Simple, efficient. It could be built rather quickly and provided capacity for growing cities that didn't need a full blown subway. Pretty much most cities in North America.

That's why the original cars are all based on married pair units. Most other systems you need a 6 car subway train, you buy a six car subway train. Skytrain offered flexibility. You might only need 2 now, maybe 6 later. Also, it minimizes downtime: a single car breaks down, you don't need to take a six car train out of service, you still have a 4 car train.

The stations are the same way. Identical. All the parts are the same. Mass produced, efficient. A panel breaks, replace it, you have a warehouse full of them. That's why all the walls were steel mesh. If a degenerate 80's punk youth (and it was worried there would be lots of those) graffitied your station's wall, all you had to do was get a guy in there with a paintbrush and it was gone in 5 minutes. It provided safety (no dark enclosed spaces) while being efficient to maintain.

Expo 86 was the same way. Many of the buildings were mass produced, and were so modular that they were disassembled after Expo. There are still several examples of the buildings still living their second lives. And many of Expo's other attractions were easily assembled and taken apart and reused elsewhere after the event. Even the monorail as far as I know is still at Alton Towers in the UK.

And I think that served us well. The region had fewer than 1.2 million residents then, and had been rather stagnant in population growth since the early 70's. A beautiful system could have left BCers in severe debt for generations. Instead we had a functional transit system that enabled and supported the city to grow.

Very true and also at the time we were more car friendly than now. And overall Skytrain has been an amazing investment.

If you remember the USSR everyone moved by transit so you had to put in a proper system and no half measures. YYou were the 1% if you owned a car

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, if there's a ten-year waiting list for even a stupid Trabant, you'd better make sure the trains look and run great.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

>snip<
Expo 86 was the same way. Many of the buildings were mass produced, and were so modular that they were disassembled after Expo. There are still several examples of the buildings still living their second lives. And many of Expo's other attractions were easily assembled and taken apart and reused elsewhere after the event. Even the monorail as far as I know is still at Alton Towers in the UK.

>snip<

one of the expo pavilions can be seen at the Scott Paper site in New
West (better from the skytrain zooming by than from street level):

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2022494,-122.9362221,74a,35y,126.89h,45.06t/data=!3m1!1e3

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, if there's a ten-year waiting list for even a stupid Trabant, you'd better make sure the trains look and run great.

heard a great joke back in the day.

a soviet worker was finally allowed to get his first car that he had saved up for all his life: a trabant. a trip to the dealer, the paperwork was all signed & had the proper stamps, and all was OK. "come back in 5 years, new car will be ready for you" he was told.

"5 years? really?"

"da - soviet quality takes time to build"

"5 years from today?"

"da, da"

"morning or afternoon?"

"either. why does that matter?" asked the dealer

"Well, The plumber is coming in the morning, so ...."