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

[Migrant_Coconut]

Metcalfe’s Law: adding another connection to a network makes both exponentially more useful. Every B-Line that’s become a SkyTrain has quadrupled and quintupled in ridership, not just doubled; ditto the B-Line over its respective local feeder route.

Likewise, once the R2 is no longer isolated from the rest of the rapid transit network, one can expect it and the R8 to Metrotown to have ridership on par with all the other RapidBuses. And once the North Shore SkyTrain replaces the whole route (and it becomes the suburbs’ primary N-S transfer corridor, generating ridership on par with the SNG), one can also expect the M-Line exchange to have much more demand, at which point Gilmore having more faregates than Brentwood would come in handy.

Nope, the controversy was the roadworks - Lower Lynn's actual residents were apparently pretty supportive of the density.
The North Shore (very generally speaking) is split politically by the TCH and the bridges, forming a rough horseshoe: the YIMBYs on the inside favour TOD, while the NIMBYs on the outside want to sprawl up the mountains and across the coast... yet also don’t want more roads to support that; Lynn Valley is currently a tossup. That’s why all the transit/road/development planning is for packing all future growth into the Lower Levels and mostly ignoring the Upper Levels (aside from Lynn Centre).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Since you're clearly aware of these limitations, can you perhaps please trust your fellow contributors who may have a slightly better understanding of the history and politics of the North Shore?

I do, about the facts.
That doesn't mean I agree with the analysis of the situation.

SkyTrain isn't some sort of magic bullet.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Metcalfe’s Law: adding another connection to a network makes both exponentially more useful. Every B-Line that’s become a SkyTrain has quadrupled and quintupled in ridership, not just doubled; ditto the B-Line over its respective local feeder route.

240 + 250 are connected to SkyTrain and hits Park Royal, Lonsdale and Lynn Valley, and still has a lower ridership than every other R-bus other than R3 and every other R-bus proposed in Phase 1 (using their current local bus riderships as proxies[so you can't use the fact it's not an R-bus yet as an excuse])... except R1's extension to South Surrey.

Likewise, once the R2 is no longer isolated from the rest of the rapid transit network, one can expect it and the R8 to Metrotown to have ridership on par with all the other RapidBuses.

If R8 is a separate R-bus, R2 will not really see massive increases in ridership, because 2 bus transfers are required.
If you split the frequency north of Phibbs or Kootenay in half or more, the frequency drops to below FTN levels for the NS section (since R8 probably would use more artics vs normal-sized buses) under the worst-case scenario.
R2 is already at 10 min at peak.

Choose your poison pill, I guess.

And once the North Shore SkyTrain replaces the whole route (and it becomes the suburbs’ primary N-S transfer corridor, generating ridership on par with the SNG), one can also expect the M-Line exchange to have much more demand, at which point Gilmore having more faregates than Brentwood would come in handy.

I don't think Gilmore has more faregates right now.

More importantly, if the Commercial-Broadway connection is any indication, you're going to have an exclusive connection between the 2 stations anyways.

There's also the fact that the South station entrance was removed for Brentwood due to construction and could (and probably will) be revived.

Nope, the controversy was the roadworks - Lower Lynn's actual residents were apparently pretty supportive of the density.
The North Shore (very generally speaking) is split politically by the TCH and the bridges, forming a rough horseshoe: the YIMBYs on the inside favour TOD, while the NIMBYs on the outside want to sprawl up the mountains and across the coast... yet also don’t want more roads to support that; Lynn Valley is currently a tossup. That’s why all the transit/road/development planning is for packing all future growth into the Lower Levels and mostly ignoring the Upper Levels (aside from Lynn Centre).

TBF, a few residents who want to make money by selling their properties for big bucks is not really indicative of wider support across the DNV for greater density.
If you put it up for a vote, it might still get struck down, especially from everyone else around them not directly benefiting from selling the land.

It also doesn't tell me if the roadworks were the primary sticking point.
Commenters on NS News seem to generally be concerned with the lack of roads (which is a bad anecdote, but still.)

And in any case, I can bring up more recent anecdotes from the same area about developments there barely getting through City Council, and only after reducing the height by 5 stories:
https://www.nsnews.com/real-estate-n...e=pocket_saves

This is not really indicative of a council or population particularly enthused about seeing more density.


Also, TBF, there's Edgemont and Cypress Villages, so that's not 100% accurate either.
There's still a decent amount of development in the Upper Levels vs the Lower Levels.
https://www.dnv.org/sites/default/fi...guidelines.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

Wrong analogy. The 240 is analogous to the 41, not the R4; multiply its ridership by 5.5, and a Park Royal-Lynn RapidBus gets 43k (almost as much as the R1/R4/R5 put together), which TBF is unrealistically high because the 240’s trying to be a feeder and express route at the same time like the 130. The real number for a well-connected R2 is going to be somewhere between the highball and the lowball; 12-24k like most other RBs seems accurate.

A new RB pretty much always comes with the purchase of new artics, no split frequency required. The R2 would come every ten minutes or better, and the R8 would come every ten minutes or better (faster than the 130). At any rate, since passengers’d save up to an hour usually spent just crawling across the North Shore and down Hastings and Willingdon, transfer penalties seem fairly minor.

Pretty much all comments sections are whining about traffic, so definitely not a good metric; the Cambie Corridor is much the same in being full of people wanting to sell, and yet there aren’t many opposition voices there either.
Other posters have previously explained how the DNV’s pretty evenly split between urbanists and reactionaries. YIMBYs like Back, Pope and Mah live in Lynn Valley or close to the CNV; Muri and Forbes, the two biggest Karens, live in Deep Cove and Lynn Valley; Hanson (Blueridge) or Mayor Little (Parkgate) are the tiebreakers. Like I said, the folks on the inside of the highway are usually for, the people further out are usually against, and Lynn’s a tossup.

Edgemont is a village centre, not even a town centre; the max FSR of 0.8-1.75 kind of proves my point. As for Cypress, everybody and their grandmother’s trashed that as bad planning.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I don't think Gilmore has more faregates right now.

8 vs 3 right now, over double. After the renovations, Gilmore will still have 8 and Brentwood will only have 6, still 1/3 more.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Wrong analogy. The 240 is analogous to the 41, not the R4; multiply its ridership by 5.5, and a Park Royal-Lynn RapidBus gets 43k (almost as much as the R1/R4/R5 put together), which TBF is unrealistically high because the 240’s trying to be a feeder and express route at the same time like the 130. The real number for a well-connected R2 is going to be somewhere between the highball and the lowball; 12-24k like most other RBs seems accurate.

I added the phase 1 R-buses that aren't already R-buses, using the local routes instead.
Eg. Surrey-White Rock, Metrotown/22nd-Richmond, Willingdon, etc.

(Also, I just remembered 100 is supposed to become an R-bus for some reason in Phase 1, so add that to the list of lines 240/250 beat.)

41st has most of its demand stolen from 41st, so it doesn't count in this case.
41st pre-R bus was also literally in the top 10 most-used bus routes (including B-line buses.)

In 2019, 250 and 240 and 239 are down at 25-36 in their ridership line rankings.
It's nowhere close to being in the same league.


Also, note I am comparing both 240 and 250 combined.
250 is lower than 100 if it's compared separately.

I just thought it wouldn't be 100% fair to do so- and SkyTrain wouldn't go all the way to Horseshoe Bay, for instance, so it's already giving those lines a ton of slack.



Ultimately, no matter how you want to screw with the numbers, NS just isn't great for transit.
It's unfortunate, but true.

A new RB pretty much always comes with the purchase of new artics, no split frequency required. The R2 would come every ten minutes or better, and the R8 would come every ten minutes or better (faster than the 130). At any rate, since passengers’d save up to an hour usually spent just crawling across the North Shore and down Hastings and Willingdon, transfer penalties seem fairly minor.

It's more frequency vs capacity.
R2 is already at 10 min frequency, which is basically the lowest you can go for R buses as-is.
R1 has higher ridership, has the same max frequency, and is forced to use regular-size buses occasionally to save money due to low demand (it's just a waste of money to have to have more artics when they're just going to be empty).

I don't use R2 that often, TBH, so you might know more here, but I doubt it's that different with the artics.

Also, come on, 130 isn't that slow.
222 also already exists, which (depending on how much priority they add) probably already captures a significant % of the potential benefit of R8.

Pretty much all comments sections are whining about traffic, so definitely not a good metric; the Cambie Corridor is much the same in being full of people wanting to sell, and yet there aren’t many opposition voices there either.

Yeah, I'll trust you on this one then.

I'm just skeptical of people who are literally being paid to throw out their opinion, and other than that anecdote, there's not really much evidence in that article.
Obviously, building roads through neighborhoods is unpopular. But people might be willing to accept it and not lose their marbles over it- especially vs building 2.7 FSR TODs across every block 5 min from Marine.

Other posters have previously explained how the DNV’s pretty evenly split between urbanists and reactionaries. YIMBYs like Back, Pope and Mah live in Lynn Valley or close to the CNV; Muri and Forbes, the two biggest Karens, live in Deep Cove and Lynn Valley; Hanson (Blueridge) or Mayor Little (Parkgate) are the tiebreakers. Like I said, the folks on the inside of the highway are usually for, the people further out are usually against, and Lynn’s a tossup.

That's nice to know.
It still means you'll see tons of blockage in the Lower Levels and Lynn Valley regardless because DNV is split, ultimately leading to a lower cost/benefit ratio for SkyTrain.
DNV needs to keep the councilors across their municipality happy.


Both the roads and density are unpopular in their own ways.
I guess this is another situation of choosing your poison, because both seem bad.

Edgemont is a village centre, not even a town centre; the max FSR of 0.8-1.75 kind of proves my point. As for Cypress, everybody and their grandmother’s trashed that as bad planning.

You're the one who was saying "all future growth" would be in Lynn and the Lower Levels.
That's factually untrue.
Edgemont Village's 1.75 FSR area is about the same size as the 1.75 FSR area in Lower Lynn (~65,000+ m2), which is a pretty decent portion of the build-out population of Lower Lynn.

This is still enough to make congestion worse and need better arterials.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Post-RB, the 41 is #40. Same difference. Speaking of future RB lines, the 430 from Richmond to Metrotown is currently #33, and the 321 to White Rock is #25; the 240 is #23.
No matter how much you screw with the numbers, the Lower Levels are just as transit-friendly any other suburb. They’re simply hampered by the fact that nobody wants to deal with the bridge traffic if they don’t have to.

If the R2 uses regular buses, I’ve never seen it, not even during post-peak evening service when most ridership evaporates. Probably the Surrey depot just doesn’t have enough artics.
I see you’ve never taken a 130 from Phibbs. As for the 222, it’s a peak-only express bus similar to the 44 or 80, so obviously demand isn’t going to be as high as an RB.

Best of luck trying to find any kind of local news from pre-2012; what can be found seems fairly pro-development and anti-road for Seylynn and other “interior” DNV neighbourhoods.
Same could be said of the last four years of CoV, Burnaby, Surrey, North Van or Tri-Cities politics: they’ve all had a large, vocal minority of NIMBYs on the council and more than a few close votes, yet have also managed to repeatedly make the most yearly housing and transit starts in Metro Vancouver, so there's no reason why the DNV can't densify their transit corridors too. The councillors that can’t get with the program can always try and fail to have all their friends win the next election.

I also said “mostly ignoring the Upper Levels.” Edgemont’s 1.75 is for a select few blocks in the central village area, while the rest is 1.2 or less (LL is 1.75 throughout, rising to 3.5 in the core). This isn’t Walnut Grove; nobody wants or expects the village to grow more than incrementally over the next few decades - which'll be fine for Capilano and Queens so long as bus service matches accordingly - while the rest of the growth will be in the inner DNV and Lynn Valley.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Post-RB, the 41 is #40. Same difference. Speaking of future RB lines, the 430 from Richmond to Metrotown is currently #33, and the 321 to White Rock is #25; the 240 is #23.
No matter how much you screw with the numbers, the Lower Levels are just as transit-friendly any other suburb.

Again, 41st/49th is one of the most in-demand corridors and dwarfs Marine in overall ridership.

430 is actually the secondary route- 410 is #18.

And in any case, 450 goes through the literal densest parts of the NS.
R2 actually has smaller catchment on Marine than 450 (450 is longer, does not parallel industrial lands and the coast, etc.)


There's give-and-take in both directions.
Maybe R2 will get 450 levels of ridership once it gets connected to SkyTrain.

It's not a silver bullet that magically saves R2's standing vs other R-buses.

I see you’ve never taken a 130 from Phibbs. As for the 222, it’s a peak-only express bus similar to the 44 or 80, so obviously demand isn’t going to be as high as an RB.

I agree- 130 is really slow getting out of its ends.
Metrotown is a huge problem too.

I'd say it's overall not that slow because of the BCIT section, but still.

Same could be said of the last four years of CoV, Burnaby, Surrey, North Van or Tri-Cities politics: they’ve all had a large, vocal minority of NIMBYs on the council and more than a few close votes, yet have also managed to repeatedly make the most yearly housing and transit starts in Metro Vancouver. The councillors that can’t get with the program can always try and fail to run for mayor.

It can, but it's not 50-50.
Which is the problem.
That minority always exists, but it's especially powerful in DNV, as you pointed out.

I mean, I guess Port Moody is worse, but that's not really a high standard.

I also said “mostly ignoring the Upper Levels.” Edgemont’s 1.75 is for a select few blocks in the central village area, while the rest is 1.2 or less (LL is 1.75 throughout, rising to 3.5 in the core). This isn’t Walnut Grove; nobody wants or expects the village to grow more than incrementally over the next few decades, which'll be fine for Capilano and Queens so long as bus service matches accordingly.

Again, those 'select few blocks' are the size of the low-density apartment area in Lynn Creek.

Bus service will always tend to suck there because of the disconnected arterials.
Even if you add bus lanes, the turns will kill the speed.

Which kind of proves my point about DNV needing better roads first, then SkyTrain.

[Migrant_Coconut]

410 goes to New West at 22nd; the RB is supposed to replace the 430 to Metrotown. At any rate, if neither were anchored to the SkyTrain network, the former would definitely not be #18; the latter has a town centre and might still be fine on its own.

There’s also the crawl down Hastings and north Willingdon, which eats up a lot of time; the 28 on Boundary fares equally bad.

Might be a good time to brush up on the rest of the metro’s politics: 2538 Birch and 4750 Granville were each approved only by a 6-5 vote, and 4 of Burnaby’s 9 councillors oppose the SFU gondola. Three urbanists, two reactionaries and two on the fence is above average by Vancouver standards.

Even if so (I’m seeing LL’s zoning being marginally larger), the rest of the town centre is much larger than the “village core,” and definitely denser than 1.75 FSR.
Also, there's two arterials that each lead straight down from Edgemont to the Lower Levels. The only reason there’s currently no buses on Edgemont/Fell (Capilano has the 240) is lack of commuters in the village (let alone traffic or congestion), which’ll be a problem no matter how many lanes you level the neighbourhood for. It's a fairly quiet area with empty roads.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

410 goes to New West at 22nd; the RB is supposed to replace the 430 to Metrotown. At any rate, if neither were anchored to the SkyTrain network, the former would definitely not be #18; the latter has a town centre and might still be fine on its own.

R4 took riders from 49 to go higher up in terms of ridership.
22nd is faster from most destinations than Metrotown-Richmond right now- sort of like how 49th was faster for most riders because it connected directly to Metrotown and took only slightly more time vs 41.

Might be a good time to brush up on the rest of the metro’s politics: 2538 Birch and 4750 Granville were each approved only by a 6-5 vote, and 4 of Burnaby’s 9 councillors oppose the SFU gondola. Three urbanists, two reactionaries and two on the fence is above average by Vancouver standards.

TBF, one of those was trying to rezone Broadway before the Broadway Plan was finalized (that block was placed for a reason)- and the other is Shaughnessy.


Dunno much about Burnaby Politics, but they tend to allow much more development overall than DNV, even outside SkyTrain corridors nowadays (Lochdale has comparable zoning to Phibbs despite not being a town center.)
BMG seems to irk BCA in particular for some reason.

Even if so (I’m seeing LL’s zoning being marginally larger), the rest of the town centre is much larger than the “village core,” and definitely denser than 1.75 FSR.
Also, there's two arterials that each lead straight down from Edgemont to the Lower Levels. The only reason there’s currently no buses on Edgemont/Fell (Capilano has the 240) is lack of commuters in the village (let alone traffic or congestion), which’ll be a problem no matter how many lanes you level the neighbourhood for. It's a fairly quiet area with empty roads.

Point is that Upper Levels traffic is still going to get worse, because development up there is not marginal to non-existent, and SkyTrain won't help with that.

It's not the number of lanes.
That's fine.

It's the turn queues that's the problem.
Add more residents, and you pretty quickly have completely blocked up traffic that nothing can pass through, well below the normal theoretical capacity.
Hence, 'connected arterials'.

[Migrant_Coconut]

And all four of those lines benefit from having a SkyTrain on both ends. The R2/240/250/etc are on their own, and so they get less ridership.

One was partially affordable housing - under a program which City Hall’d also placed - and the other was supported by pretty much everybody except the neighbours and council. No, the DNV and its council aren’t super progressive as a whole (and I don't think I ever said they were), but they're hardly reactionary either. Compare and contrast with White Rock, which has a much better road grid and yet doesn't even want development that fits the existing OCP.

Worst comes to worst, Edgemont’ll ditch the parking lanes, but it probably won't come to that; under the current plans, the only areas where Upper Levels traffic will really get worse are Lonsdale and Lynn Valley, and those are getting a RB (eventually) too.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And all four of those lines benefit from having a SkyTrain on both ends. The R2/240/250/etc are on their own, and so they get less ridership.

240/250 go across LGB to hit SkyTrain in Downtown.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The 240/250 have an obstacle in the First Narrows bottleneck, which offsets that. The others (aside from sometimes the 430 at Knight) are free-flowing from one SkyTrain to the other.

[jollyburger]

They finally posted a diagram of the road upgrades for the RapidBus R2. The bike/transit lane will share certain sections which explains how they will fit in the new bus lane coming down the hill.

And part of the west bound bicycle lane will be moved off the road so they can fit in the new RapidBus lane.



https://www.cnv.org/streets-transpor...idbus-upgrades

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They finally posted a diagram of the road upgrades for the RapidBus R2. The bike/transit lane will share certain sections which explains how they will fit in the new bus lane coming down the hill.

And part of the west bound bicycle lane will be moved off the road so they can fit in the new RapidBus lane.



https://www.cnv.org/streets-transpor...idbus-upgrades

I think the combined bike and bus lane will work well. With the large downhill heading east cyclists should be able to maintain a pretty brisk pace and not delay the buses too much. This should work better than some of the combined lanes downtown, e.g. on Georgia where the uphill section headed east between Cardero and Bute where slow-climbing bikes often slow down buses to a crawl.

[Unregistered User]

I ride this section all the time and I don't mind the changes at all. This upgrade is desperately needed. When I coast down that section I can easily get up to about 60kph, so I don't think there'll be much of an issue holding up the R2.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Unregistered User

I ride this section all the time and I don't mind the changes at all. This upgrade is desperately needed. When I coast down that section I can easily get up to about 60kph, so I don't think there'll be much of an issue holding up the R2.

I just hope the off-street mobility lane is built wide enough both for passing, but also for the weaving that is inevitable when a cyclist is struggling up a steep hill.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's an eastbound lane: downhill all the way through.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's an eastbound lane: downhill all the way through.

The off street mobility lane is the westbound lane, but I believe it already exists. It's not great IMO but honestly I never cycle up 3rd anyway, I prefer taking the Spirit Trail.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Ah, other cyclists doing the passing. My bad.

[jollyburger]

Another photo of the changed road configuration



https://twitter.com/CityOfNorthVan/s...222316/photo/1