Transit Fantasies

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but you can take advantage of the highway instead of going through surface streets

Fair enough, but a completely new RapidBus still means buying a lot of artics just to go three stops down to a less-important station. Maybe the "existing" line could be branched (with some continuing down Knight and others splitting off to Annacis)? Call it the "R7.5" or something like that.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Fair enough, but a completely new RapidBus still means buying a lot of artics just to go three stops down to a less-important station. Maybe the "existing" line could be branched (with some continuing down Knight and others splitting off to Annacis)? Call it the "R7.5" or something like that.

R7A and B

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Also, I keep forgetting that this is real:
"Immediately advance the required planning, engagement, and design work to confirm the best alignment, technology, grade separation, terminus locations and phasing for a rapid transit connection between Metrotown and Park Royal via the Second Narrows corridor to be implemented in the latter half of the plan"

Says implemented by 2027-2032. Wonder if they'll try to take a lane away on the Second Narrows during rush hour for buses. Don't think they've gone into much detail yet on a early roll-out strat.

Attempting to bring this conversation over to this thread.

I had a design thought that I think could make sense. The biggest hurdle for this design is the Second Narrows bridge; What if that factor was eliminated? An eventual North Shore Skytrain connection is expected to have a separate bridge crossing the inlet next to the Second Narrows so why not build it early?

The bridge can be built as a double decker bridge similar to the Manhattan Bridge with the bottom deck used for BRT traffic and the top deck used for pedestrian/cycling traffic. Then, during North Shore Skytrain construction the bridge will be untouched until the very end when the pedestrian deck will be closed to be converted into a rail deck during which tracks will be lain and initial testing done. During this time, the bus deck will not be affected and transit will be undisrupted. Then finally once the North Shore Skytrain is fully commissioned, the BRT deck can be converted into a new pedestrian/cycling deck similar to the North Arm Bridge of the Canada Line. (With the assumption the BRT line will be decommissioned)

The north end of the bridge can connect to the end of Riverside Dr W and the south end of the bridge can connect in the proximity of N Gilmore Ave. The R2 will no longer terminate at Phibbs and instead continue down Main St and turn right down Riverside Dr W, then take the bridge across to N Gilmore Ave until Hastings, after which it will take the 222 route. There is potential for a stop to be added at Riverside Dr W to serve the Maplewood community and a stop to be added at Oxford St to serve the Burnaby Heights community.

Not only is this an improvement for BRT traffic with zero disruptions and complete grade separation, but this would also be a signficant improvement for pedestrian/cycling traffic. Right now pedestrian/cycling connections are fine on the south end of the Second Narrows westward and a bit rough heading westward but not at all good continuing southwards. With a bridge to the east, the south end can connect to the Trans Canada Trail for east-west travel and Willingdon or Carlton/Gilmore for southwards travel connecting to the Central Valley Greenway. On top of that, a modern cable stayed bridge will have much better clearance than the Second Narrows, so the bridge can be lower and flatter, a huge benefit for cyclists (if you've ever cycled the Second Narrows, you know what I'm talking about).

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's not a bad idea (assuming we can add SkyTrain to an existing bridge, which keeps being pitched but never actually happens)... but any kind of pedestrian/bike connection seems pointless as long as Main/Dollarton is near-completely hostile to them.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's not a bad idea (assuming we can add SkyTrain to an existing bridge, which keeps being pitched but never actually happens)... but any kind of pedestrian/bike connection seems pointless as long as Main/Dollarton is near-completely hostile to them.

You'd obviously engineer the bridge such that it could support the future addition of Skytain tracks. This wouldn't be attempting to retrofit the 80 year old Second Narrows, this would be a bridge intentionally designed for Skytrain expansion.

As for pedestrian/bike friendliness, it's really just the Lynn Creek to Orwell St section that is openly hostile. Dollarton has a dedicated separated MUP on both the north and south side and City of North Vancouver infrastructure is very welcoming. Hopefully that one section will be improved in the future.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

...As for pedestrian/bike friendliness, it's really just the Lynn Creek to Orwell St section that is openly hostile. Dollarton has a dedicated separated MUP on both the north and south side and City of North Vancouver infrastructure is very welcoming. Hopefully that one section will be improved in the future.

The District of North Vancouver's new bridge across Lynn Creek should help in that respect. The crossing will connect the Spirit Trail between Bridgeman and Seylynn parks near the western end of Hunter Street. According to a post on the District's website from November 12, "concrete for the bridge deck has been poured and work to install lights, railings, and trees continues".

More from the North Shore News

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's great news for Lower Lynn residents... not so great for anybody walking over the Second Narrows. I guess chow's bridge could link with Phibbs somehow, and that'll be good enough until the SkyTrain comes along?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Attempting to bring this conversation over to this thread.

An eventual North Shore Skytrain connection is expected to have a separate bridge crossing the inlet next to the Second Narrows so why not build it early?

I would love a dedicated pedestrian/cyclist crossing. Even if the IWM tied in well to paths on both sides of the inlet, that bridge is a miserable experience. The slope sucks, it is much louder and fumier than other crossings due to the skinny jersey barrier, and the path is pretty narrow (I lost some skin on the railing this summer).

[jollyburger]

I mean for smaller crossings like the North Arm Bridge it sort of makes sense for it to have a cycling/pedestrian component. But seems like it would just be cheaper to force people onto the Skytrain and just build it as a transit bridge.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I would love a dedicated pedestrian/cyclist crossing. Even if the IWM tied in well to paths on both sides of the inlet, that bridge is a miserable experience. The slope sucks, it is much louder and fumier than other crossings due to the skinny jersey barrier, and the path is pretty narrow (I lost some skin on the railing this summer).

I really like the North Arm Bridge. I'd like to see that model replicated. There's plenty of room for pedestrians and cyclists, it's "grade separated" from the SkyTrain line above and it's pretty comfortable to be on. I don't think it would be an issue to scale that up and do the harbour crossing with a similar design.

[Tvisforme]

So, where's the best place to put this bridge (or any bridge, for that matter)? According to Bowen Ma (in a 2021 article) the IWM has "probably up to 45 remaining years of serviceable life in it", which means that a replacement would need to be in place by the mid-2060s at the latest. Any new bridge for transit or otherwise will have to involve some consideration of where the IWM's replacement would be located.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

So, where's the best place to put this bridge (or any bridge, for that matter)? According to Bowen Ma (in a 2021 article) the IWM has "probably up to 45 remaining years of serviceable life in it", which means that a replacement would need to be in place by the mid-2060s at the latest. Any new bridge for transit or otherwise will have to involve some consideration of where the IWM's replacement would be located.

I know that in reality they've looked at construction of a North Shore - Downtown Vancouver Skytrain Bridge to the west of the existing Second Narrows Bridge aligned with Orwell St. This alignment wouldn't allow for BRT usage and wouldn't be particularly useful for pedestrian/cycling use. The bridge I propose would be aligned with Riverside Dr W.

For Ironworkers' replacement, I wonder if it makes sense in the future to replace the Thornton Tunnel + Second Narrows Rail Bridge with a dual tracked tunnel + bridge further to the east and build a replacement Highway 1 bridge where the current Second Narrows rail bridge is. A very real bottleneck on both ends of the Ironworkers' is the harsh bends when entering and exiting the bridge which noticibly slow vehicles and causes backups. If you could build a bridge which curves out to the east slightly, you could smooth out that transition.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I suspect that any further east brings them into conflict with Burnaby Heights residents, so it has to be somewhere between the existing bridge and Lynnterm.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I know that in reality they've looked at construction of a North Shore - Downtown Vancouver Skytrain Bridge to the west of the existing Second Narrows Bridge aligned with Orwell St. This alignment wouldn't allow for BRT usage and wouldn't be particularly useful for pedestrian/cycling use. The bridge I propose would be aligned with Riverside Dr W.

For Ironworkers' replacement, I wonder if it makes sense in the future to replace the Thornton Tunnel + Second Narrows Rail Bridge with a dual tracked tunnel + bridge further to the east and build a replacement Highway 1 bridge where the current Second Narrows rail bridge is. A very real bottleneck on both ends of the Ironworkers' is the harsh bends when entering and exiting the bridge which noticibly slow vehicles and causes backups. If you could build a bridge which curves out to the east slightly, you could smooth out that transition.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I suspect that any further east brings them into conflict with Burnaby Heights residents, so it has to be somewhere between the existing bridge and Lynnterm.

Speaking of curves, looking at the shadow the IWM casts on Google Maps satellite view, is there room to build a bridge between the IWM and rail bridges?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Speaking of curves, looking at the shadow the IWM casts on Google Maps satellite view, is there room to build a bridge between the IWM and rail bridges?

There probably isn't enough room considering a replacement bridge would almost certainly be of a greater scale than the existing Ironworkers', let alone the limited access to the approaches on both sides of the inlet. Vancouver Heights on the south bank is difficult terrain, and the railway + reserve + Seymour River makes the north bank difficult to work with too.

[FarmerHaight]

Now this, is a fantasy...

It's official: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Now this, is a fantasy...

It's official: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

It makes perfect sense for France though. From the article, only 3 routes are effected.

Initially, the ban will only affect three routes between Paris Orly and Nantes, Lyon, and Bordeaux where there are genuine rail alternatives.

If rail services improve, it could see more routes added including those between Paris Charles de Gaulle and Lyon and Rennes as well as journeys between Lyon and Marseille. They currently don't meet the criteria for the ban because trains to airports in Paris and Lyon don't allow passengers to arrive early in the morning or late in the evening.

Others - such as routes from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Bordeaux and Nantes - weren't included because the journey time is more than the 2.5 hour limit.

2.5 hours is realistically what anyone will spend commuting to an airport, checking in, going through security, etc. A minor inconvenience for those trying to connect but it's likely that some of those minor airports will see longer routes start opening up once the traffic isn't being funneled through Orly or CDG.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by mcj

It makes perfect sense for France though. From the article, only 3 routes are effected.

It makes perfect sense for France.

I'm just saying in a complete fantasy world, similar bans could be put in place across Canada. True HSR from Vancouver heading East and South could eliminate flights from YVR and YXX to SEA, YKA, and YLW. Same with flights between Edmonton and Calgary, Toronto and Buffalo, and Ottawa and Montreal.

My point is it's almost shocking how North America and Europe are worlds apart when it comes to short haul travel.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

It makes perfect sense for France.

I'm just saying in a complete fantasy world, similar bans could be put in place across Canada. True HSR from Vancouver heading East and South could eliminate flights from YVR and YXX to SEA, YKA, and YLW. Same with flights between Edmonton and Calgary, Toronto and Buffalo, and Ottawa and Montreal.

My point is it's almost shocking how North America and Europe are worlds apart when it comes to short haul travel.

Yeah completely, Toronto and Montreal are 500km apart, as are Bordeaux and Paris. In a fantasy world, flights could all be eliminated in the Windsor to Quebec City corridor. Will be interesting to see how the 21st century plays out, even African countries (Morocco) have operational high speed rail now while we sit on our hands.

[Aroundtheworld]

This is an idea for rapid transit in Abbotsford that came about as part of my work on regional rail. The idea is to have a central elevated corridor through Abbotsford that would serve both rapid transit and regional rail with hubs at Clearbrook and Abbotsford Central.