Transit Fantasies

[rpvan]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Why no line to Tsawwassen Ferry or at least Mills?

Yeah I realized that in retrospect. Price to pay for making the map up in 15 minutes is you miss something really obvious.

Definitely should have a line down there as well.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Because they double back on themselves and cut off outward expansion. So no Dunderave, Ambleside or even Park Royal - the line turns around and heads right back to Vancouver. Generally, you want a loop in the middle of the network where you don't need to expand and all the other lines can bisect it.

Not to mention that looking at the map, a closed circuit at Waterfront would bypass most of the West End and only be able to serve the Coal Harbour NIMBYs. Best to have Park Royal-Downtown as its own line.



"Without major upgrades." The CWHF, if it's even happening, is still a long way away; the Hastings Line has to be planned independently of it.

Both of the mid-harbour options involve rebuilding the Canada Line from Yaletown-onward, so that's probably off the table.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/nort...study-skytrain
You could just build a new line there instead.
Only issue is that the 60m depth of the station- mitigatable with a lot of escalators and tunneling, though obviously not ideal.

I would, however, note that this could be integrated in a rebuild of the Canada Line once it reaches the 15,000 pphpd limit (which would require the Canada to be shut down anyways if it is done.)

Disappointed the CWHF isn't really being considered much. It'll probably go on the table in any serious study on the subject (like a lot of strange ideas for Broadway and Surrey were), but still. Even without Hastings it would still be useful (just not to replace Seabus, it'd be more like the 2nd Narrows option.)


Looking closer at Marine Drive, it seems surface tram-train/BRT may be feasible. Just get rid of the center turn lanes and the bike lanes.

Then again, that's not an insignificant cut in transportation capacity in the region. Autonomous cars should allow for narrower lanes... so maybe it's more feasible than I initially thought.

Originally Posted by rpvan

Quick and dirty sketch I made showing a possible future SkyTrain/LRT/BRT network within Metro Vancouver, excluding current lines and the soon to be built Broadway-Arbutus + Surrey-Langley lines.

The small intra-city lines would be LRT/BRT and the longer inter-city lines would be SkyTrain.

Really had to see the distinction like this. It would be better if they had different colors.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's in TransLink's conceptual plan for just one crossing, at Second Narrows; Second and First in one line requires either a turn south at Norgate, or much more clout and budget than we have in this half of the century. I get that you want a line from your neighbourhood straight downtown, but that isn't likely for various reasons.

I mean- you could have a tram-train/BRT network on Lions Gate. Only issue is that closes up Lions Gate, so it's only feasible with a new road crossing of sorts.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Douglas Road makes sense. I still think both Hastings and Willingdon should have continuous lines all the way through, though.



You said (correctly) that we'll only get one line for the North Shore in the near future... but if we've only got enough funding for one line, then we've only got enough for one crossing. Second Narrows and Norgate is already a stretch, but a plausible one; Second Narrows and Park Royal's chances aren't even in the single digits.

Central Lonsdale. Not Lonsdale Quay with the SeaBus terminal, which is what most people in the transit threads usually refer to. And if it's going up the Keith Road slope, it's not coming back down - even with a 6% grade, the fantasy thread's had a hard enough time just getting it from Esplanade to 3rd from the other direction.

Eh, the maps aren't exact, so I wouldn't put too much weight on the maps. I interpreted it more as just a general alignment.
If it goes to West Van, it's going to go all the way to Park Royal. The bus loop (only one in West Van) and the towers being built there are too juicy/important to just ignore. Ambleside is also where the WV designated City Center is, so you could make a good argument to go at least all the way there.

Originally Posted by officedweller

I wouldn't be surprised, as a cost-savings measure, if the Burnaby segment south of the Second Narrows crossing (bridge), heads to Hastings & Boundary (with an underground Burnaby Heights Station there), then cutting over to Douglas Rd where it becomes elevated following Douglas and Gilmore (interchange station at Gilmore Station instead of Brentwood Town Centre) crossing Hwy 1 either along Gilmore or cutting over to Willingdon with a BCIT Station on Willingdon, before entering a tunnel for the hill to Metrotown.

That means 2 compromises on station location: Burnaby Heights being extremely west of the district, and the transfer station at Gilmore instead of Brentwood. Gilmore area may have more office development than Brentwood Town Centre Station.

The idea's not a bad one- the only issue would be Douglas is relatively narrow and would be likely reduced to effectively 2 lanes and a bike path (or just remove all the cars entirely).

I would like to point out that there IS a possibility to get to Brentwood. It requires going through the extension of Brentwood Heights Park @ Gravely St, then going across the cemeteries, then tunneling down to make a transfer to Brentwood.

Not impossible, and the land value on those lots would be massive at that point, but dealing with cemeteries is... complicated. They might be able to save Pacific Heritage, but Beth Israel would be definitely impossible to save.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Option 2A takes the tunnel so deep under Burrard Inlet that it might as well be the direct Waterfront-Lonsdale route. Should I mention that both First Narrows plans don't connect to Lonsdale or Phibbs?



Take a look at the Jericho bend

TBF, 2A could be a Bridge.

Jericho Bend? Confused as to what you're referring to, I thought the route wasn't solid through/near the Jericho Lands yet.

Originally Posted by Diegotheartist1

If the North Shore line was to use the same tech as the Expo & Millennium Lines, My theory of how the line could work out is this:

The Expo Line would extend all the way to Phibbs. The Gold route of the North Shore line would terminate somewhere in Downtown Vancouver (Maybe it could be Stadium Station via Platform 3.) As for the purple route, I assume the terminus would be at Station Street near Expo's Metrotown Station.

I'm not sure about which portions of the Gold & Purple are to be elevated or underground (Hastings will be underground), but that is something we're going to have to find out soon.

Here's my conceptual map of what the route may look like based on my assumption:



Blue: Expo
Yellow: Millennium
Cyan: Canada
Red: North Shore

Also, am I the only one who thinks Expo shouldn't really ever loop back onto itself like the Toronto 1 Line on Hastings? It makes logical sense that Expo, as the backbone of the network, parallels Hwy 1A.

[Diegotheartist1]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, am I the only one who thinks Expo shouldn't really ever loop back onto itself like the Toronto 1 Line on Hastings? It makes logical sense that Expo, as the backbone of the network, parallels Hwy 1A.

Maybe the Expo Line should stay terminated at Waterfront Station.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/nort...study-skytrain
You could just build a new line there instead.
Only issue is that the 60m depth of the station- mitigatable with a lot of escalators and tunneling, though obviously not ideal.

I would, however, note that this could be integrated in a rebuild of the Canada Line once it reaches the 15,000 pphpd limit (which would require the Canada to be shut down anyways if it is done.)

Disappointed the CWHF isn't really being considered much. It'll probably go on the table in any serious study on the subject (like a lot of strange ideas for Broadway and Surrey were), but still. Even without Hastings it would still be useful (just not to replace Seabus, it'd be more like the 2nd Narrows option.)

It's up for debate whether the Canada Line will reach 100% of the 15k maximum capacity within our lifetimes... and near-impossible for TransLink to even consider shutting it down for five years if so. Might as well just get across the North Shore somewhere else; the purple route would provide an alternate N-S route for commuters, and so would a train on Arbutus.

Regardless of the utility, it's understandable that TPTB don't want to make major part of their rapid transit planning dependent on a possible major redevelopment. I still say we can do without it.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Looking closer at Marine Drive, it seems surface tram-train/BRT may be feasible. Just get rid of the center turn lanes and the bike lanes.

Then again, that's not an insignificant cut in transportation capacity in the region. Autonomous cars should allow for narrower lanes... so maybe it's more feasible than I initially thought...

... Eh, the maps aren't exact, so I wouldn't put too much weight on the maps. I interpreted it more as just a general alignment.
If it goes to West Van, it's going to go all the way to Park Royal. The bus loop (only one in West Van) and the towers being built there are too juicy/important to just ignore. Ambleside is also where the WV designated City Center is, so you could make a good argument to go at least all the way there.

We've already got the R2, which we can upgrade to BRT. Not going to get significantly more capacity than that without a SkyTrain.

The map is based on the plan TransLink came up with. Granted, plans can change, but it's safe to assume they came up with the most feasible alignment first; dig the tunnel any further west, it'll be as deep as the straight Waterfront-Lonsdale tunnel.

I'm not saying we can't go to Park Royal and eventually Ambleside; I'm saying that we can have West Van or downtown, not both on the same line.

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBF, 2A could be a Bridge.

Jericho Bend? Confused as to what you're referring to, I thought the route wasn't solid through/near the Jericho Lands yet.

Another bridge through Stanley Park? Seeing as the treehuggers don't even allow upgrades for the first bridge, that's probably a bad bet.

No, but there's graphics of it. It (and others in the SkyTrain network, like I said) are gentle turns, rather than the train-killing hairpin turns likely needed to get the line from Brockton to Robson and then back to Waterfront. Gentle turns are only going to get us one station on Nicola, and in that case, what's the point? The only way it works is with First Narrows-Robson-Burrard like TransLink suggests, not Waterfront.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's up for debate whether the Canada Line will reach 100% of the 15k maximum capacity within our lifetimes... and near-impossible for TransLink to even consider shutting it down for five years if so. Might as well just get across the North Shore somewhere else; the purple route would provide an alternate N-S route for commuters, and so would a train on Arbutus.

The only issue with a parallel line is that the densest section for passengers on the Canada is at the False Creek/Broadway/Downtown Area.

So you need a second N-S connection into Downtown at some point. Regardless of if you replace the Canada with a new line, or build a parallel line, you need a second N-S station section at Waterfront to accommodate it. May as well extend it to Lonsdale.

The Purple Line would be as useful as a N-S route for Vancouver commuters as HWY 91 is for Richmond commuters- especially since 41/49 St is listed as a 'future Skytrain corridor.' https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tran...nsit-expansion

Everyone east of Main trying to use a Skytrain going N-S is most likely going on the Expo.

Back when I was doing the "Master Plan", I calculated that the Canada would require a major upgrade to lengthen the station platforms at around 2060-ish, assuming a linear passenger growth rate (along with a major upgrade on the Expo.

It's still dumb IMO they went underground for the Canada instead of elevated- it makes these sorts of upgrades more difficult.

Regardless of the utility, it's understandable that TPTB don't want to make major part of their rapid transit planning dependent on a possible major redevelopment. I still say we can do without it.

It allows for a consolidation of the crossings at 1 location and takes pressure off the Expo Line for commuters to the North Shore...

The map is based on the plan TransLink came up with. Granted, plans can change, but it's safe to assume they came up with the most feasible alignment first; dig the tunnel any further west, it'll be as deep as the straight Waterfront-Lonsdale tunnel.

Which is also not exact and is a general alignment.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Another bridge through Stanley Park? Seeing as the treehuggers don't even allow upgrades for the first bridge, that's probably a bad bet.

Exactly - and that's why TransLink doesn't seem to be seriously planning a Skytrain line through the area and are looking at Second Narrows instead (which I can easily see being a bridge instead of a tunnel). The cost to benefit ratio isn't worth it right now.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The only issue with a parallel line is that the densest section for passengers on the Canada is at the False Creek/Broadway/Downtown Area.

The fastest / easiest way for a lot of people to transfer between the Expo and Canada lines is to travel into downtown Van. Let's see what happens when the Millennium Line connects to the Canada Line outside of downtown and then decide if we need another line into downtown Van.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/nort...study-skytrain
You could just build a new line there instead.
Only issue is that the 60m depth of the station- mitigatable with a lot of escalators and tunneling, though obviously not ideal.

I would, however, note that this could be integrated in a rebuild of the Canada Line once it reaches the 15,000 pphpd limit (which would require the Canada to be shut down anyways if it is done.)

I don't think the Canada Line will be rebuilt. It would be cheaper and more beneficial to build out a parallel North/South Line. And I'm not even sure it needs to go all the way to the downtown peninsula. Once the M-Line is built, we may see a significant shift away from downtown along that corridor. A North/South Line along Knight/Fraser (could even be elevated for a lot of its length) connecting with the M-Line at VCC-Clark (maybe with an infill station on the Expo Line there as well) and then continuing on to the Hastings Line.

Or how about a Victoria Line. The #20 Victoria Bus is 5th busiest bus route after all (I don't know how much is because of the section on Hastings, though)

I know Arbutus seems like an obvious choice, but in respect to TOD, East Vancouver probably has more potential. You could cross the bridge East of Knight Street and continue on to become an East/West Line in Richmond along Bridgeport... or depending on where the traffic is coming from on the Canada Line, turn down Marine and terminate at Marine Gateway.

Looking closer at Marine Drive, it seems surface tram-train/BRT may be feasible. Just get rid of the center turn lanes and the bike lanes.

Then again, that's not an insignificant cut in transportation capacity in the region. Autonomous cars should allow for narrower lanes... so maybe it's more feasible than I initially thought.

Roads aren't only going to be used by autonomous cars. We may see some degree of automation on highways, but autonomous cars will be mixed with other vehicles that use up every bit of width (like buses) for a long time to come.

I mean- you could have a tram-train/BRT network on Lions Gate. Only issue is that closes up Lions Gate, so it's only feasible with a new road crossing of sorts.

Which I'm not sure is a bad idea. The parks board wants to shut Stanley Park down to cars before 2050 anyhow. Reducing traffic through there is also good. One idea I was thinking about is having the center lane a one-way transit-only use. Not sure how long it would take to cross the Lion's Gate but it could work if signalled properly.

Eh, the maps aren't exact, so I wouldn't put too much weight on the maps. I interpreted it more as just a general alignment.
If it goes to West Van, it's going to go all the way to Park Royal. The bus loop (only one in West Van) and the towers being built there are too juicy/important to just ignore. Ambleside is also where the WV designated City Center is, so you could make a good argument to go at least all the way there.

True, but downtown COULD be better served by the Lions Gate bridge and either a tram-line or rapid bus service.

Also, am I the only one who thinks Expo shouldn't really ever loop back onto itself like the Toronto 1 Line on Hastings? It makes logical sense that Expo, as the backbone of the network, parallels Hwy 1A.

I'm mixed on it. But it does have one VERY significant advantage, you increase capacity on the Expo Line in the OFF-Peak direction. Hastings Riders going to Stadium will just stay on the train.

Hastings to Metrotown
Hastings to Commercial Drive

You get to use your off-peak direction more efficiently. I know it makes the Expo line longer, but terminating Expo Trains at Phibbs could potentially solve that as well. Perhaps additional tracks and switches to shunt around problems as the line gets longer.

[officedweller]

On the downtown side, I really don't see a need for the Red Line to go to Waterfront, given that it came from the North Shore (ie no connections to Seabus needed).

That might suggest an opportunity to create a transfer station at Burrard or under Georgia St. (connecting Vancouver City Centre Station with Granville Station) with an ultimate terminus station in the West End.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Exactly - and that's why TransLink doesn't seem to be seriously planning a Skytrain line through the area and are looking at Second Narrows instead (which I can easily see being a bridge instead of a tunnel). The cost to benefit ratio isn't worth it right now.


The fastest / easiest way for a lot of people to transfer between the Expo and Canada lines is to travel into downtown Van. Let's see what happens when the Millennium Line connects to the Canada Line outside of downtown and then decide if we need another line into downtown Van.

No one I know of who lives in Vancouver calls it "downtown Van" maybe "Vancity" but it's either just "downtown" or the "West End" or "Yaletown". Just like San Franciscans don't call their city "Frisco" or "San Fran". Just saying.

Not JUST the Expo Line. As someone who lives along the Millennium Line, I usually favor two transfers to get to the airport over a bus to the Canada Line, despite the bus being about 10 minutes faster.

The Train is just SO much faster and more convenient. The only time I took the bus is when I had to make an early flight out of YVR and the first train wasn't early enough, so it was either a cab or bus to the Canada Line.

The M-Line is a GAME changer in so many ways and it will REALLY open up Cambie more than people think. It means you have people who can live in Brentwood and work in Marine Gateway or Oakridge area. People go on and on about the line not going to UBC but THE REAL traffic will be EAST of Cambie St, not west of it.

Getting to UBC is a NICE to have, but I'd actually put a Hastings Line or North Shore Line as a higher priority... and definitely would go to Langley before UBC (which is what will be happening anyhow)

I know the 99 B-Line is busy and a lot of students are going to UBC, but those that are in UBC aren't going to be switching to cars without a train line... they'll still ride the bus. On the other hand, lines along Hastings, the North Shore, and to Langley have potential to really shape those areas and INCREASE ridership for a much lower cost if we build it before lots of development happens. And this is coming from someone who will definitely benefit from a line WEST of Arbutus as I have young kids who would benefit from that route.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

No one I know of who lives in Vancouver calls it "downtown Van" maybe "Vancity" but it's either just "downtown" or the "West End" or "Yaletown". Just like San Franciscans don't call their city "Frisco" or "San Fran". Just saying.

Yes, even here on the North Shore, "downtown" means Vancouver's core specifically.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

On the downtown side, I really don't see a need for the Red Line to go to Waterfront, given that it came from the North Shore (ie no connections to Seabus needed).

That might suggest an opportunity to create a transfer station at Burrard or under Georgia St. (connecting Vancouver City Centre Station with Granville Station) with an ultimate terminus station in the West End.

Hell, why bother with Burrard?

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Which I'm not sure is a bad idea. The parks board wants to shut Stanley Park down to cars before 2050 anyhow. Reducing traffic through there is also good. One idea I was thinking about is having the center lane a one-way transit-only use. Not sure how long it would take to cross the Lion's Gate but it could work if signalled properly.

That means the only route from Squamish/Whistler/Prince George to downtown is the IWMB. Probably not going to happen.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

On the downtown side, I really don't see a need for the Red Line to go to Waterfront, given that it came from the North Shore (ie no connections to Seabus needed).

That might suggest an opportunity to create a transfer station at Burrard or under Georgia St. (connecting Vancouver City Centre Station with Granville Station) with an ultimate terminus station in the West End.

I agree, although being able to use the reverse-peak of the EXPO line is pretty attractive. The trick would be getting over to Georgia (but I suppose the same problem exists when trying to get from Waterfront to Hastings).

Not sure if the old Railway corridor that bisects Tinseltown would work or not but if so, that also goes directly under Stadium station, offering another place to Transfer.

Something like this perhaps? Only one new station needed downtown:

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hell, why bother with Burrard?

I was thinking there needs to be a station centrally located in the CBD to avoid excessive transfers and overloading the Expo or Canada Line.

Stadium Station and Yaletown Roundhouse aren't central enough for downtown office workers to exit and walk to the office.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The only issue with a parallel line is that the densest section for passengers on the Canada is at the False Creek/Broadway/Downtown Area.

So you need a second N-S connection into Downtown at some point. Regardless of if you replace the Canada with a new line, or build a parallel line, you need a second N-S station section at Waterfront to accommodate it. May as well extend it to Lonsdale.

The Purple Line would be as useful as a N-S route for Vancouver commuters as HWY 91 is for Richmond commuters- especially since 41/49 St is listed as a 'future Skytrain corridor.' https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/tran...nsit-expansion

Everyone east of Main trying to use a Skytrain going N-S is most likely going on the Expo.

Back when I was doing the "Master Plan", I calculated that the Canada would require a major upgrade to lengthen the station platforms at around 2060-ish, assuming a linear passenger growth rate (along with a major upgrade on the Expo.

It's still dumb IMO they went underground for the Canada instead of elevated- it makes these sorts of upgrades more difficult.

Maybe, maybe not. Right now the Expo's operating at 15k right now, and despite serving a longer corridor than Cambie/Richmond, the downtown segment isn't excessively crowded. Though it probably wouldn't hurt to have RapidBuses on Burrard and Granville...

Above-grade north of King Ed was never likely: even if the disruption wasn't a deal breaker, the elevation would be.

Originally Posted by fredinno

It allows for a consolidation of the crossings at 1 location and takes pressure off the Expo Line for commuters to the North Shore...

Which is also not exact and is a general alignment.

If the Purple Line would be useless to Vancouver commuters, then a consolidation at Waterfront would be useless to anybody east of Commercial. Not much point in consolidation when each Narrows serves different catchments entirely - and having Canada Line riders switch east on a 41st Line to get to the North Shore would ease the hypothetical crunch in the Broadway/Downtown stretch.

Why wouldn't TransLink bring the Park Royal extension to the SeaBus if it were possible? And why would they drag the tunnel west out into the deeper part of the channel? It's a general alignment, but most likely the optimal one.

[officedweller]

1) Cutting under heritage buildings to Beatty St (transfer to west end of Stadium Station (Lost Property Office passage) and under Larwill Park/Art Gallery; or
2) Victory Square, VCC and QE Theatre probably do not have really deep parking garages/foundations
so a line could curve under them.

I don't know how deep the Dunsmuir Tunnel is, though.

Along Georgia, the tunnels would have to dive below Canada Line, Pacific Centre Mall and the Howe Street tunnel.

The Vancouver Centre mall passage under Georgia St. could be replaced by the concourse/mezzanine level of the station connecting between Hudson's Bay and Vancouver Centre the same way the Canada Line concourse at Vancouver City Centre Station connects btween Pacific Centre and Vancouver Centre.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I was thinking there needs to be a station centrally located in the CBD to avoid excessive transfers and overloading the Expo or Canada Line.

Stadium Station and Yaletown Roundhouse aren't central enough for downtown office workers to exit and walk to the office.

It's less about those stations and more about a circle connection to the Canada and Expo at the same time; with two near-empty stations, transfers can skip the CBD altogether and free up space in the "triangle."

Besides, I don't think we want to close down Burrard Station for another two years.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

No one I know of who lives in Vancouver calls it "downtown Van" maybe "Vancity" but it's either just "downtown" or the "West End" or "Yaletown". Just like San Franciscans don't call their city "Frisco" or "San Fran". Just saying.

Not JUST the Expo Line. As someone who lives along the Millennium Line, I usually favor two transfers to get to the airport over a bus to the Canada Line, despite the bus being about 10 minutes faster.

The Train is just SO much faster and more convenient. The only time I took the bus is when I had to make an early flight out of YVR and the first train wasn't early enough, so it was either a cab or bus to the Canada Line.

Well there's downtown Vancouver and downtown Surrey (Surrey Central - although it's nowhere near the center of Surrey... ) and then many of the other cities within Metro Van have their own mini downtowns. I just find it easier to say which one I mean.

I'm with you on how having a connection between the Millennium and Canada lines is going to be a game changer. That's why I think we should wait before adding another N-S line (like say Arbutus) into downtown Van.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If the Purple Line would be useless to Vancouver commuters, then a consolidation at Waterfront would be useless to anybody east of Commercial. Not much point in consolidation when each Narrows serves different catchments entirely - and having Canada Line riders switch east on a 41st Line to get to the North Shore would ease the hypothetical crunch in the Broadway/Downtown stretch.

Grid vs hub & spoke. You and I are talking about a more grid-like layout.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Well there's downtown Vancouver and downtown Surrey (Surrey Central - although it's nowhere near the center of Surrey... ) and then many of the other cities within Metro Van have their own mini downtowns. I just find it easier to say which one I mean.

Fair enough, but what stands out (and, as a lifer, sounds really odd) is the use of "Van". While "North Van", "West Van" and "East Van" are normal references for the suburbs and neighbourhood respectively, it is really unusual to hear the city itself referred to in that way ("downtown Van", "Metro Van" or "Van") by locals. Much more typical would be "downtown Vancouver".

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Fair enough, but what stands out (and, as a lifer, sounds really odd) is the use of "Van". While "North Van", "West Van" and "East Van" are normal references for the suburbs and neighbourhood respectively, it is really unusual to hear the city itself referred to in that way ("downtown Van", "Metro Van" or "Van") by locals. Much more typical would be "downtown Vancouver".

Exactly... or just downtown. If someone's in Surrey and say they're going downtown... they're not going to Surrey Central. I'm trying to think of any region that uses that. I think you have to get out to Abbotsford before "downtown" means "Abbotsford"

A "van" is a home that a guy lives in down by the river. A "downtown van" is a van that the who lives by the river that was towed to a parking garage... downtown.

Trying to think what I'd say...

I live...
"in Newton"
"in Whalley (or recently Surrey Central ?)"
"in Brentwood"
"near The Quay (New West)"
"in Metrotown"
"in Lonsdale"
"in Park Royal"
"in Ambleside"
"in Kits"
"downtown"

Actually... New West sounds right for New Westminster... but Londoners don't say "I am going to see Big Ben in 'West' they say in Westminster"

Maybe Langley? Do they call it Willowbrook? Or Langley Centre? or downtown?

I'm not sure what Richmond people call their downtown... "Richmond Centre?"

I think Squamish is sufficiently far away. "Downtown" means "Downtown Squamish"

Now I kind of want to do a language study... actually, I'm also curious if the "Broadway Corridor" is going to get its own identity. It spans a few neighbourhoods. Is it downtown South? South False Creek?

I know, it's just nomenclature... but interesting.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hell, why bother with Burrard?

That means the only route from Squamish/Whistler/Prince George to downtown is the IWMB. Probably not going to happen.

People from Prince George don't take the #99. They take the #1. But in any case, there would still be 1 lane open to cars each way, you just take over one lane as rail only.

At 30km/h the 1.5km span would take 3 minutes... so you should be able to do 10-minute frequencies assuming a reasonable speed of 40–60 km/h across the bridge. I have NO idea if this is feasible or not, but it's interesting to think about.