The next GVRD rapid transit line?

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by nname

...As far as I know, TL's prefer option for Hasting Line is to continue the expo track...

If you've ever played Ticket to Ride, there is a bonus for the longest connected route at the end of the game. Clearly, there's a game at stake in Translink's design department and the planners are determined to win. Extend the Expo Line east from Waterfront, follow Hastings to Willingdon, turn south to Metrotown, then head west along Kingsway and 41st to UBC. That ties in to the Arbutus-UBC extension and thus you have a very long, looping line that is continuous from Langley to Coquitlam. 10 points for the win, budget be damned.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'm guessing it's some upper management suit who's fixated on having the fewest OMCs possible. If so, that may be a bottleneck later on.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm guessing it's some upper management suit who's fixated on having the fewest OMCs possible. If so, that may be a bottleneck later on.

Interconnected tracks and a single train style make sense for lots of reasons.

On that note I see zero expansion plans for the Canada Line which seems odd, if we're looking out 30+ years.

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interconnected tracks and a single train style make sense for lots of reasons.

For example, not needing to build a whole new station facility at Waterfront is probably worth quite a bit of money

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by nname

Did I miss anything there? So how they get to 100km? I don't know, maybe they round every line up to the nearest 5km?

So in short, NoF maybe gets about 8km extra in term of population, and NS probably get a bit more for their share but consider they started with 0. So no one really get screwed over.

This is an interesting observation, but I can think of a good reason for the mismatch between the map and the numbers.

Visualizations are important, hence the route map, but the poll is really more about the strategy/technology (i.e. do we want to stick with grade separation/SkyTrain oriented, or do we want to do more surface i.e. LRT/BRT). So the number figures are given as more of an example/hypothetical, in order to simplify the question since none of the routes are actually finalized. Regardless, concept maps are concept maps, and (I mean, given the position you all know I'm in), there is cause to take them as material and draw attention to S.o.F. needs/interests.

I can see why they want to get over this right away (the 'SkyTrain vs LRT' question becomes central to every big expansion we plan, so why not incorporate it into our long-term strategy?). And though I still don't think they're going about this in the best way (a lot of the tradeoffs are not examined, and to an extent, debate might be suppressed), it is nonetheless a legitimate question to pose.

One thing I want to point out: the language they are using is the exact language I know to have been used by biggest enthusiasts of the "SkyTrain vs. LRT" discourse (i.e. separation from traffic vs. concrete requirements). The maps are pretty suggestive of this too (the Network B map bases its South of Fraser map on the grid-like LRT map that was devised by city staff when the pro-LRT council under Linda Hepner was still in charge).

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interconnected tracks and a single train style make sense for lots of reasons.

On that note I see zero expansion plans for the Canada Line which seems odd, if we're looking out 30+ years.

Having one train style is good. Having one depot for almost the entire city is not.

Not really sure where they'd take it. Steveston's a dead end, and Broadmoor/Southarm makes Point Grey look like Midtown.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Having one train style is good. Having one depot for almost the entire city is not.

Not really sure where they'd take it. Steveston's a dead end, and Broadmoor/Southarm makes Point Grey look like Midtown.

It is crazy how Network A is almost a line for line exact match with my own fantasy transit map, with just a very few small changes, one of which is that I imagined extending Canada Line to Steveston instead of extending rapid transit through West Vancouver (the other difference is that I imagined a line down Commercial/Victoria, but angling southwest from 41st and Victoria to meet Marine at Main and then heading west to Marpole, whereas network A has the line carrying straight south across the river on the Victoria alignment and then heading west on an alignment I'm not sure of - maybe the hydro right of way?).

Sure Steveston is a dead end, it is definitely not at the top of the list for the next line in my mind, but it is a regional destination, with relatively solid density around it, a nice easy right of way to get to it on (which nicely cuts down the middle of Richmond), and is in a city with a good track record of adding density around skytrain stations.

For West Vancouver, I would only support transit past Park Royal if it was a dedicated two stop line with one station in Ambleside, and the other one at Hastings and Main.

[Sheba]

Seeing as everyone seems to be posting about Transport 2050 here - a few comments from TransLink from the Reddit AMA:

Network A and B are really concepts that illustrate two different approaches to expanding the rapid transit network. Both are intended to be iterative. They're not the ultimate end state. The region will continue to grow and we'll need to refine our approach over time. But what we're asking for feedback in Transport 2050 is about which approach generally speaking we should take: focussing on fewer corridors but building to higher capacity, or building more corridors reaching more of the region with the tradeoff of repurposing road space for dedicated transit lanes.

To your point number 3, the absolutely preferred network in Phase 3 will likely be a hybrid network that takes approaches from both these networks.

Generally to what kind of BRT or LRT is envisioned, we've made no distinction in Transport 2050 at this stage. We're just focussing on is street-level in dedicated lanes, or above/below grade. What we do mean by street level in dedicated lanes, is fully separted from traffic and running at high frequency. Really "gold level" LRT/BRT.

For the "Network B" option which involves bus rapid transit, would there be budget to build fairly nice stations with sheltered platforms and faregates at the platform (and quick boarding times / short dwell times), more like a train?

It's not just for Network B, it's for both networks. Both envision some amount of street level rapid transit. Yes, we are absolutely thinking about this kind of "gold level" system with stations that provide sheltered platforms, faregates and a comfortable waiting environment, so it would function more like the existing experience that people have with SkyTrain.

...

In both proposed networks in Transport 2050, all of the street-level rapid transit that's proposed, whether BRT or LRT, includes physically separated lanes that would be not be possible for other traffic to drive in. It's really about creating "gold level" physically separated lanes.

...

These two network concepts are conceptual at this stage and more detailed projects will come later. On the maps that we're presenting, the dotted green lines are to represent really high quality inter-regional services like West Coast Express. You can see there are lines to Abbotsford and Tsawwassen.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Makes sense; Canada Way isn't a priority, but neither is SkyTrain on 41st.

Originally Posted by GMD

Sure Steveston is a dead end, it is definitely not at the top of the list for the next line in my mind, but it is a regional destination, with relatively solid density around it, a nice easy right of way to get to it on (which nicely cuts down the middle of Richmond), and is in a city with a good track record of adding density around skytrain stations.

Sure, but Ladner's a destination that shapes the network better - might as well leave the Canada Line alone until Transport 2080 and go from there.

[Klazu]

They love talking about "dedicated transit lanes" as an option, but how do you achieve that when 90% of our road infrastructure is shitty 2+2 lanes without shrinking these arterial roads down to 1+1 lanes?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Klazu

They love talking about "dedicated transit lanes" as an option, but how do you achieve that when 90% of our road infrastructure is shitty 2+2 lanes without shrinking these arterial roads down to 1+1 lanes?

Clusters of towers are being built on transit, but most people here also want more density everywhere in the region. If higher densities are developed away from existing transit, or where it's currently a bus running in mixed traffic, there will be more people wanting (or needing) to move around the region.

For shorter journeys some can and will walk or bike. For everything else there's cars, and transit. Cars take up the most road space. They're an inefficient way of using the space available. They congest the space when they reach a critical mass, which means that the more space-efficient transit system becomes adversely affected. It becomes less efficient, slower, and so less attractive. Businesses that need to use the roads, like deliveries, construction and repair technicians are less efficient.

How do you suggest the region adds more people, and so trips, without prioritising the most efficient method of moving them around? That's without considering the environmental benefits of reducing, or not increasing, congestion.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Klazu

They love talking about "dedicated transit lanes" as an option, but how do you achieve that when 90% of our road infrastructure is shitty 2+2 lanes without shrinking these arterial roads down to 1+1 lanes?

I don't think it's TransLink's mandate to ensure easy, cheap, abundant road space for private automobiles.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

How do you suggest the region adds more people, and so trips, without prioritising the most efficient method of moving them around? That's without considering the environmental benefits of reducing, or not increasing, congestion.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think it's TransLink's mandate to ensure easy, cheap, abundant road space for private automobiles.

Within reason, of course. We didn't spend all that time fighting big, stupid LRTs just to end up with big, stupid BRTs - definitely not when a regular B-Line type RapidBus would work for 9/10ths of the proposed routes.

[DKaz]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think it's TransLink's mandate to ensure easy, cheap, abundant road space for private automobiles.

It's Vancouver, there isn't abundant room for anything. Private automobiles will always have a place but we need to make the most out of the little space we have.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Within reason, of course. We didn't spend all that time fighting big, stupid LRTs just to end up with big, stupid BRTs - definitely not when a regular B-Line type RapidBus would work for 9/10ths of the proposed routes.

Which is why I love this region's expansion of what they call and designate as Rapid Bus and the buy-in and infrastructure changes by municipalities. It's a short degree away from BRT - "rush hour" BRT in a sense.

Using Option B with BRT / Rapid Bus as a method to track, boost, entice ridership is a cost effective pathway as development occurs - direct future development and modal / commuter behaviours. Good investments to buy real estate near.

[GenWhy?]

Would love to see the data for a Willingdon line of sorts.

Just fear as many a municipality in North America deems buses as "lower class" and you get "lower" population density areas getting very expensive LRT in dedicated ROW lines or elevated lines when ridership isn't there. Taking road infrastructure dedicated to buses is cheap and cheerfully and flexible.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Would love to see the data for a Willingdon line of sorts.

Just fear as many a municipality in North America deems buses as "lower class" and you get "lower" population density areas getting very expensive LRT in dedicated ROW lines or elevated lines when ridership isn't there. Taking road infrastructure dedicated to buses is cheap and cheerfully and flexible.

To be valuable the new line must have :

a) a large catchment area, besides the north shore ... suggest south of the south arm of the Fraser river.

b) come up through Richmond on a new street besides number 3 ... suggest direct north on number 6, (huge opportunity to go vertical all along that street) then over to Knight street (also a chance to put in vertical all along that street), all along Clark drive (which connects with the Expo line and the Millennium line), all the way down to Hastings, and then ...

c) either down town, further from that to North shore

or

d) just jump across from Clark and Hastings to Lonsdale

comments

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

To be valuable the new line must have :

a) a large catchment area, besides the north shore ... suggest south of the south arm of the Fraser river.

b) come up through Richmond on a new street besides number 3 ... suggest direct north on number 6, (huge opportunity to go vertical all along that street) then over to Knight street (also a chance to put in vertical all along that street), all along Clark drive (which connects with the Expo line and the Millennium line), all the way down to Hastings, and then ...

c) either down town, further from that to North shore

or

d) just jump across from Clark and Hastings to Lonsdale

comments

Maybe there are more development options east/west of Lonsdale but I still think a crossing that goes up Lonsdale to near the highway would give you a lot of density looking at all the units that are nearing their end of life. Though if it's elevated then it will probably never happen.

[Migrant_Coconut]

No need for Richmond. Simply connecting Brentwood, BCIT Metrotown and the River District would net a fair amount of ridership.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Maybe there are more development options east/west of Lonsdale but I still think a crossing that goes up Lonsdale to near the highway would give you a lot of density looking at all the units that are nearing their end of life. Though if it's elevated then it will probably never happen.

under water, across the inlet

elevated to about 7th,

underground to the upper levels