HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #481  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 2:36 PM
osirisboy's Avatar
osirisboy osirisboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 6,099
They spent 18 months on doing the phibbs exchange and didn’t even build any enclosures. Did TransLInk forget we get blowing rain and snow here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #482  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 5:05 PM
Mac Write Mac Write is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by cganuelas1995 View Post
I accidentally tapped my phone on the compass reader the other day on the bus, who do I go through to reverse it?
Call customer service 1-888-207-4055
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #483  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 5:12 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaddieB View Post
The stretch from Metrotown to Oakridge is actually quite dense. If you check on censusmapper, the whole area has densities of around 60 to 90 people per ha over a very large area.
Arbutus to Alma is much denser, but they couldn't quite justify running the Millennium Line to Alma when the Broadway Extension was planned because "density falls off after Arbutus". SFHs (even if they have basement suites) just don't really cut it I'm afraid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #484  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 6:02 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 38,494
Yeah, 'gentle' density can't justify rapid transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #485  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 6:15 PM
mcj mcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: New West
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Yeah, 'gentle' density can't justify rapid transit.
Except for when it does for the original Expo line, the Surrey extension in the 90s, the Millennium Line, the Canada Line, and the Surrey Langley extension. And like all of those, there's no reason why the single station between all of those major destinations won't become as dense as the stations on any of the above have over time (plus those stations would be on major N-S bus routes).

The real reason this won't happen is because, despite having the ridership to more than justify it, the suburbs will raise hell over it being in Vancouver instead of their own sea of SFHs with no major destinations in between.

If we're using the (imo correct) logic that bus ridership should preclude rapid transit development, this is the logical choice after the UBCx.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #486  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 6:53 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
... If we're using the (imo correct) logic that bus ridership should preclude rapid transit development, this is the logical choice after the UBCx.
Except we don't need a second line to UBC or the West Side yet, we just need a first one. When that one's finished, a large chunk of the R4's ridership will more than likely switch to the faster M-Line, as with the 25 and 33.

I'm sure there'll be a lot of people that'll still need to move along 41st/49th. I'm also sure that it won't be enough to jump the queue over Willingdon, Hastings or the North Shore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #487  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 7:02 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
Except for when it does for the original Expo line, the Surrey extension in the 90s, the Millennium Line, the Canada Line, and the Surrey Langley extension. And like all of those, there's no reason why the single station between all of those major destinations won't become as dense as the stations on any of the above have over time (plus those stations would be on major N-S bus routes).

The real reason this won't happen is because, despite having the ridership to more than justify it, the suburbs wil Note that all of these urban centres predate the Skytrain network!l raise hell over it being in Vancouver instead of their own sea of SFHs with no major destinations in between.

If we're using the (imo correct) logic that bus ridership should preclude rapid transit development, this is the logical choice after the UBCx.
All of the above extensions were meant to connect city centres (and the airport) to the existing Skytrain network (or in the case of the original Expo Line, creating the Skytrain network by linking downtown Vancouver to downtown New West via Metrotown which was already dense by modern standards in 1986). It also didn't hurt that the Expo Line and Millennium Line were both primarily built above ground along existing RoWs. It's not a huge issue if the line runs through relative low density areas if large urban centres are serviced. Love it or hate it, the Skytrain network is still primarily a commuter centred system, designed to get people from highish density residential, to high density office/commercial, and vice-versa.

If you look at the Metro Vancouver "urban centre map" which has been relatively unchanged since the 1980s, the Skytrain network is relatively easy to picture. Even the original Millennium Line which was slightly botched from the get-go (it was always from the beginning meant to go all the way to Coquitlam) at least connected Lougheed Town Centre into the Skytrain Network.



UBCx will be the first Skytrain extension to not connect an urban centre to the Skytrain network (though UBC is obviously a centre of its own).

What exactly would a 41st/49th Skytrain link into the network? Metrotown and Oakridge area already part of the network and creating a shortcut between the Expo Line and the Canada Line isn't necessarily a compelling reason. The proposed Purple Line will connect the Lonsdale urban centre into the network, the Langley extension will connect the Langley urban centre into the network, and the Millennium Line guideway is designed for the Millennium Line to continue eastwards towards Port Coquitlam and potentially even Maple Ridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #488  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 7:07 PM
madog222 madog222 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,813
Demand is demand, linking X to Y on a map doesn't matter now that the system has reached most corners of the region.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #489  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 7:16 PM
mcj mcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: New West
Posts: 612
You guys do realize it is part of the long term plans? Transport 2050 specifically does outline that a grade separated line is coming for the 41st/49th Ave corridor.

I do understand the history of the development of the Skytrain network and the designated regional centres (strange to notice how Kerrisdale is missing from that despite being substantially more dense than many of those other centres). However, ignoring ridership and solely focusing on regional connectivity just gives weight to the Abbotsford/Chilliwack train folks argument (or any other argument that some far flung burbs give as to why they're more deserving of investment than substantially more populated areas), and fails to provide for better solutions where demand actually exists.

No one fully knows the impact of the UBCx on the R4/49 routes, but at this time those routes have the ridership to warrant improvements over every other route that isn't the 99 itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #490  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 7:26 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,544
So then I suppose King Edward, Arbutus, 29th, Robson, Davie and Kingsway should immediately get SkyTrains too (since those are the fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth busiest lines)? Of course not.

Yes, it's a fact that 41/49th SkyTrain is on the list. It's also a fact that TransLink's already released plans for a North Shore crossing while South Van hasn't even had a catchment study yet - where there's smoke, there's fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
No one fully knows the impact of the UBCx on the R4/49 routes, but at this time those routes have the ridership to warrant improvements over every other route that isn't the 99 itself.
Before the Canada Line, the 98 B-Line down Granville Street was one of the busiest bus routes in the region. After the Canada Line, all TransLink really needed was the #10.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #491  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 7:58 PM
mcj mcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: New West
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
So then I suppose King Edward, Arbutus, 29th, Robson, Davie and Kingsway should immediately get SkyTrains too (since those are the fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth busiest lines)? Of course not.

Yes, it's a fact that 41/49th SkyTrain is on the list. It's also a fact that TransLink's already released plans for a North Shore crossing while South Van hasn't even had a catchment study yet - where there's smoke, there's fire.

Before the Canada Line, the 98 B-Line down Granville Street was one of the busiest bus routes in the region. After the Canada Line, all TransLink really needed was the #10.
I don't think that first question is coming from a genuine stance. Skytrain isn't the only option for improvement on those other routes. Some of those routes, like the 16 for example (which hardly runs on 29th, it just ends up at 29th ave station) it's the main connection for anyone along the Expo (or anyone south of Hastings) to the PNE by running up Renfrew, and the main connection for those in Kerrisdale to downtown. Yet it's still a trolleybus that stops at every single block, Translink could easily implement a Rapidbus level service (or even a conventional express service) to improve this route.

To answer your disingenuous preposition, yes any route in the top 10 for ridership should absolutely have investment dollars allocated to improving that service. I don't see how that's an unreasonable stance. In the case of the R4, that improvement is clearly a Skytrain level solution. For others, that could be an express bus overlay, or a streetcar (in the case of the 5/6).

And yeah the Canada line was built to service the route of the 98? Don't get that point, it's not like there was another bus route going North South in Vancouver that dramatically saw it's ridership decline when that opened besides the ones it directly replaced? 41st/49th aside from the connection to UBC is a completely different corridor than Broadway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #492  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 8:18 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
- snip -
I could easily argue that "just build where the ridership is" is equally flawed. Just as the West End and Arbutus Ridge don't warrant more than RapidBus service (if at all) on their own, the West Side cannot justify two SkyTrains yet; if the 99 could survive thirty years of being passed over for the Canada and Evergreen Lines (which definitely had to happen as well), then the R4 can surely handle twenty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcj View Post
...And yeah the Canada line was built to service the route of the 98? Don't get that point, it's not like there was another bus route going North South in Vancouver that dramatically saw it's ridership decline when that opened besides the ones it directly replaced? 41st/49th aside from the connection to UBC is a completely different corridor than Broadway.
It was built along Cambie, not Granville, and yet managed to draw in most of Granville's N-S ridership (likely Arbutus and Main's too). In the RAV's case, the destination was more important than the in-between.

Different corridor, same purpose: as with the 25 and 33, the R4 is artificially crowded because many riders are trying to get to UBC, not local stops; all three lines are going to see a massive drop once UBCx replaces that demand, and then new SkyTrains and new RapidBuses will be superfluous for another couple of decades. Can't just be reacting to demand, that's the short-term thinking that created Condon's streetcars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #493  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 8:33 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,544
By all means, cite us all the 41st/49th SkyTrain cost/benefit, catchment, environmental and alignment studies TransLink has made public so far (like they have with the North Shore and UBCx), and I'll apologize immediately. Right now all we've got is a line on a map that says "to be done by 2050," and that's it - the 2020s and 30s, possibly the 40s, are pretty crowded with other transit projects as-is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #494  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 8:37 PM
FarmerHaight's Avatar
FarmerHaight FarmerHaight is offline
Peddling to progress
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Vancouver's West End
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
So then I suppose ... Robson, Davie ... should immediately get SkyTrains too
As a West Ender, yes please

All this talk about which major transit project should come first is a little silly, because all of the next five or 10 projects are all needed or justified right now.

- Ironworkers is congested AF so we need the North Shore line.
- UBC is one of the most significant transit trip generators (maybe the most significant behind the downtown? I am not sure how to measure this, but I imagine the with the number of captive students riders plus all the employees it must be up there?) in the region and deserves Skytrain all the way.
- Metrotown and Oakridge are growing incredibly fast, and taking some congestion off the Metrotown to downtown segment of the Expo by enabling SoF residents to take transit to the airport and UBC without passing through downtown would be a god-send.
- Surrey is a major city in its own right, and if its ever going to slow its endless sprawl and develop in a more sustainable way the city could really use Scott Road, KGB, and 104 ave, like, rn.
- East Van is a traffic sewer every rush hour, and Hastings is incredibly walkable and surround by dense-ish neighbourhoods, so there should be a line there too.
- Lionsgate is also congested AF, and the West End would generate a ton of ridership, so there should totally be a First Narrows line.
- If we're going to maximize the SLS, a BRT or train connecting Langley City, Carvolth, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge would by a big help.

The only reason why we are having this phasing conversation (and I say phasing because, as far as I understand it, no one is saying we should never build 41/49, or UBCx, or the purple line, but rather which should come first) is because Metro Vancouver has only managed about one rapid transit project per decade since SkyTrain was introduced. And at that pace, the list I gave above, let alone the rest of the Translink2050 Major Transit Network, should all be completed and in-place by the mid-2100s.

After all my bloviating, the question is whether Metro Vancouver and its senior government funding and planning partners can manage two or *gasp* more rapid transit projects per decade from 2030 to 2050, similar to how the Broadway Subway and SLS should both be completed in the 2020s? At that pace (6+ major projects completed by 2050) there should be enough rapid transit to go around for Vancouver AND the North Shore AND SoF to all get their fair share (sorry Richmond et. al.).
__________________
“Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a bike” – John F Kennedy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #495  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 8:39 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,544
Depends on the next few elections; the Libs may be useless at funding any transit that's not in Quebec or Ontario, but the Cons hate transit altogether.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #496  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 8:46 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Depends on the next few elections; the Libs may be useless at funding any transit that's not in Quebec or Ontario, but the Cons hate transit altogether.
I'm not sure where you get that idea. They generally love rapid transit. PP has been talking about funding transit if density happens.

The Ontario PCs have been investing a ton in upgrades there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #497  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 8:58 PM
FarmerHaight's Avatar
FarmerHaight FarmerHaight is offline
Peddling to progress
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Vancouver's West End
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I'm not sure where you get that idea. They generally love rapid transit. PP has been talking about funding transit if density happens.

The Ontario PCs have been investing a ton in upgrades there.
Social programs are slated to take a big hit, but conservatives seem to love capital projects and Canadian conservatives lack the association of transit and poverty that many of their American counterparts have.
__________________
“Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of riding a bike” – John F Kennedy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #498  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 9:20 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I'm not sure where you get that idea. They generally love rapid transit. PP has been talking about funding transit if density happens.

The Ontario PCs have been investing a ton in upgrades there.
He's said that he'll hold transit funding back unless cities "densify" (whatever his definition is). His pre-predecessor, Andrew Scheer, cited transit as one of the budget items he'd slash to reduce spending. They don't exactly seem inclined to splurge on two or three SkyTrain projects at once; if they keep funding us at the current rate, I'll call that a win.

IMO the provincial parties are somewhat separate from the federal ones - that's why I didn't drag Christy Clark into this.

Sorry, didn't mean to get us sidetracked. Let's move back to transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #499  
Old Posted May 7, 2024, 9:25 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmerHaight View Post
The only reason why we are having this phasing conversation (and I say phasing because, as far as I understand it, no one is saying we should never build 41/49, or UBCx, or the purple line, but rather which should come first) is because Metro Vancouver has only managed about one rapid transit project per decade since SkyTrain was introduced.
It's also worth noting that Translink does not seem to have as a primary objective "maximization of transit/person". The priority seems to be absolute needs, followed by regional connectivity, all weighed by $/transit rider. The Broadway Extension is an absolute need; Broadway simply cannot carry more 99s, and at the proposed density and ridership it makes sense to run a tunnel. The Purple Line is a regional connector, and most of the route will be above grade which makes the dollars go a lot farther and can justify a somewhat less dense route. 41st/49th is neither an absolute need (right now) or a regional connectivity project. On top of that, there is no RoW so it would have to be a long, long tunnel. As long as the R4 and 49 are not packed to the absolute brim and there are still regional connectivity projects to do, it's unfortunately still way at the back of the line. All the current proposed regional connectivity projects will be at/above grade for significant portions of the route (North Shore/Langley/even UBCx through Pacific Spirit), so it's pretty hard to justify 41st/49th in comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Depends on the next few elections; the Libs may be useless at funding any transit that's not in Quebec or Ontario, but the Cons hate transit altogether.
Love him or hate them, the Evergreen Extension was funded by the Harper federal government and Campbell provincial government, and I'm not entirely sure how if the Federal government aided in the Expo Line, but the early 1980s were the Mulroney years and Bill Bennett years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #500  
Old Posted May 8, 2024, 6:10 PM
madog222 madog222 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,813
A look inside 6011-6025. Seating count for the Mark V confirmed at 137, end cars have 22 each and centre cars 31.

Video Link


Video Link

Last edited by madog222; May 8, 2024 at 6:27 PM.
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.