Transit Fantasies

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Being a bunch of reactionary snobs on the edge of town who're hard to reach and who already rejected a RapidBus. Your "connectivity prevents NIMBYism" theory has multiple aforementioned counterexamples; rather, West Van and White Rock's isolationism stems almost completely from white flight. It'll take a demographic shift away from the rich Boomers and/or a gridlock-induced brain drain before they start inviting density and transit again.

And seeing how the entire Kitchener line performs only slightly better than the WCE (~800 riders/day between Kitchener and Georgetown, 13k on the whole line... less than two full traffic lanes), that was most definitely not a waste of money.

Yes, let's hear it. I've yet to see anybody pushing Rail for the Valley who didn't have a personal stake in it.

I am not from anywhere that the extensions of the WCE or the Skytrain would ever touch.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

ON and QC happen to pollute 4x as much as BC - so much for train coverage.

Your link doesn't support what you are saying.

Province or territory		2019 greenhouse gas emissions (megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent)
Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)	 11.1
Prince Edward Island (PE)	  1.8
Nova Scotia (NS)		 16.2
New Brunswick (NB)		 12.4
Quebec (QC)			 83.7
Ontario (ON)			163.2
Manitoba (MB)			 22.6
Saskatchewan (SK)		 74.8
Alberta (AB)			275.8
British Columbia (BC)		 65.7
Yukon (YT)			  0.7
Northwest Territories (NT)	  1.4
Nunavut (NU)			  0.7

That would make Ontario emissions of CO2 about about 2.5x that of BC's, and Quebec's 1.3x BC's. By comparison, Ontario has about 2.9x BC's population, and Quebec has about 1.7x.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Your link doesn't support what you are saying.



That would make Ontario emissions of CO2 about about 2.5x that of BC's, and Quebec's 1.3x BC's. By comparison, Ontario has about 2.9x BC's population, and Quebec has about 1.7x.

I think he meant that combined, Ontario and Quebec emit 4x as much as BC.

But can we all take a minute to soak in how high Alberta's emissions are? It's no wonder Canada's emissions aren't getting better. My goodness

I realize Alberta is Canada's "loss leader" since the extraction of fossil fuels that the rest of Canada burns is likely partly responsible for that number. I also realize Alberta doesn't have access to hydro power like Quebec or BC. But still...

[bardak]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

All you'd really need to do is add track to connect to existing rail lines.

There is a difference between fantasy and completely out of reality

1. There is no room to add a line along the port
2. The port is only getting busier
3. Using the connection between false creek flats and the CP mainline blocks all four lines on the mainline
4. Between the skytrain and the CN main line there is little room in the grandview cut to add track.
5. Between brunette and the fraser river there is once again little room for an extra track.
6. The bridge is already inadequate for the traffic that goes over it
7. The causeway is to narrow to add a track and would need to be widened

So if you don't want to spend the billions on rectifying all those issues on top of the billions to lay track in the easy parts you would have to try and run it along side the freight traffic. Easy peasy just coordinated a regularly scheduled service with all four major freight carriers in the metro area.

At the end of the day unfortunately for commuter rail Vancouver has major port that is currently expanding situated in front of the only practical train station downtown. A big part of why Toronto and Montreal were able to create large commuter rail systems was because of reduction of freight traffic within the central part of their cities. That left them with a number of underused lines in that they could use. The only underused lines/RoW we have are the arbutus rail line out to new west and the inter urban line in the valley and neither of them have a practical terminal without huge investments.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by bardak

There is a difference between fantasy and completely out of reality

1. There is no room to add a line along the port
2. The port is only getting busier
3. Using the connection between false creek flats and the CP mainline blocks all four lines on the mainline
4. Between the skytrain and the CN main line there is little room in the grandview cut to add track.
5. Between brunette and the fraser river there is once again little room for an extra track.
6. The bridge is already inadequate for the traffic that goes over it
7. The causeway is to narrow to add a track and would need to be widened

So if you don't want to spend the billions on rectifying all those issues on top of the billions to lay track in the easy parts you would have to try and run it along side the freight traffic. Easy peasy just coordinated a regularly scheduled service with all four major freight carriers in the metro area.

At the end of the day unfortunately for commuter rail Vancouver has major port that is currently expanding situated in front of the only practical train station downtown. A big part of why Toronto and Montreal were able to create large commuter rail systems was because of reduction of freight traffic within the central part of their cities. That left them with a number of underused lines in that they could use. The only underused lines/RoW we have are the arbutus rail line out to new west and the inter urban line in the valley and neither of them have a practical terminal without huge investments.

I'd say that would be money well spent.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by bardak

There is a difference between fantasy and completely out of reality

1. There is no room to add a line along the port
2. The port is only getting busier
3. Using the connection between false creek flats and the CP mainline blocks all four lines on the mainline
4. Between the skytrain and the CN main line there is little room in the grandview cut to add track.
5. Between brunette and the fraser river there is once again little room for an extra track.
6. The bridge is already inadequate for the traffic that goes over it
7. The causeway is to narrow to add a track and would need to be widened

So if you don't want to spend the billions on rectifying all those issues on top of the billions to lay track in the easy parts you would have to try and run it along side the freight traffic. Easy peasy just coordinated a regularly scheduled service with all four major freight carriers in the metro area.

At the end of the day unfortunately for commuter rail Vancouver has major port that is currently expanding situated in front of the only practical train station downtown. A big part of why Toronto and Montreal were able to create large commuter rail systems was because of reduction of freight traffic within the central part of their cities. That left them with a number of underused lines in that they could use. The only underused lines/RoW we have are the arbutus rail line out to new west and the inter urban line in the valley and neither of them have a practical terminal without huge investments.

With an economic miracle, TransLink could build on that corridor if they did it elevated or underneath.

[cganuelas1995]

Here is a link to a map I made of my imagined Waterfront-West End-Kits-Arbutus relief line connecting the UBC extension and Arbutus station with Waterfront Station, as well as serving Burrard and West 4th, MoV, English Bay, and the West End, as well as providing relief to the Canada Line by rerouting UBC passengers heading to the Downtown Peninsula or straight to Waterfront and even all the way to the PNE along Hastings if the R5 is ever upgraded to a SkyTrain extension (not to mention giving a one seat ride to those passengers).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/ed...cC&usp=sharing

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd say that would be money well spent.

A $6-7 billion pricetag means "money well spent" would require 20x the WCE's ridership; Waterfront-Delta would be lucky to get 1x.

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Here is a link to a map I made of my imagined Waterfront-West End-Kits-Arbutus relief line connecting the UBC extension and Arbutus station with Waterfront Station, as well as serving Burrard and West 4th, MoV, English Bay, and the West End, as well as providing relief to the Canada Line by rerouting UBC passengers heading to the Downtown Peninsula or straight to Waterfront and even all the way to the PNE along Hastings if the R5 is ever upgraded to a SkyTrain extension (not to mention giving a one seat ride to those passengers).

Without meaning to be a wet blanket, you're crossing English Bay at its widest; maybe have it go all the way down Thurlow to Senakw, with a branch down Robson?

[bardak]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd say that would be money well spent.

Spend what will most likely be more than a new 20km metro line so that we can have a commuter rail train from downtown to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal that would take as long as the current solution does. And it all it really does outside of that is duplicate service that already exists.

You complain that translink only looks to skytrain as a solution for our transit issues but you seem way more focused on commuter rail purely because other cities have used circumstance that don't exist here.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Without meaning to be a wet blanket, you're crossing English Bay at its widest; maybe have it go all the way down Thurlow to Senakw, with a branch down Robson?

I'd adjusted the alignment so it still goes along Denman and Robson, and I've added a more direct alternative route highlighted in red going down Thurlow and turning at Davie to meet the False Creek crossing.

[jollyburger]

Sounds like the North Shore will push for the Skytrain route that crosses near the 2nd Narrows:

https://northshoreconnects.ca/wp-con...ment_Final.pdf

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Sounds like the North Shore will push for the Skytrain route that crosses near the 2nd Narrows:

https://northshoreconnects.ca/wp-con...ment_Final.pdf

Is this really a fantasy?
So, after the UBC extension is done, the Surrey/Langley extension is done this will be next?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Sounds like the North Shore will push for the Skytrain route that crosses near the 2nd Narrows:

https://northshoreconnects.ca/wp-con...ment_Final.pdf

I may be alone in this but, to me, this route makes sense (specifically the Gold route). Waves did a post a year ago that really dived deep (*ahem*, excuse the pun) in what it would like trying to cross the Burrard Inlet and it seemed like crossing at Second Narrows would be estimated to be the most cost effective option taking into consideration the tunnel's depth and length .

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is this really a fantasy?
So, after the UBC extension is done, the Surrey/Langley extension is done this will be next?

It would make sense to me that this is the next extension to be considered after the UBC extension.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is this really a fantasy?
So, after the UBC extension is done, the Surrey/Langley extension is done this will be next?

I mean it won't happen in the next 10 years. And they still have to pay for the UBC extension.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Since this is the fantasy thread, why not both? Build the Purple as-is, then have the Gold intersect at Hastings-Gilmore before instead heading east to Kensington.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is this really a fantasy?
So, after the UBC extension is done, the Surrey/Langley extension is done this will be next?

Could do a double project with a Willingdon line, depending on route and if there is enough density along Willingdon to warrant it.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Could do a double project with a Willingdon line, depending on route and if there is enough density along Willingdon to warrant it.

Being able to connect it to the Millennium Line at Brentwood and the Expo Line at Metrotown (and BCIT in-between) would warrant it.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Being able to connect it to the Millennium Line at Brentwood and the Expo Line at Metrotown (and BCIT in-between) would warrant it.

I reckon the first phase could be the purple alignment but instead of turning west on Hastings and then up north near the PNE, it would just continue north and then do a nice gentle turn west and continuing along, with provisions to connect with a tunnel running west for a possible future Hastings line. Next phase could then connect to underground platforms underneath a rebuilt Joyce Collingwood station and then continuing west along a future 41st Avenue relief line all the way to UBC.

This could be within our lifetimes.

[WALKIEBRO]

I think this alignment is good but the branching should be out of downtown and not North Vancouver. The line should go out from downtown then one branch to North Van, one branch to Metrotown.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean it won't happen in the next 10 years. And they still have to pay for the UBC extension.

5 years from now, the Arbutus opens.
5 years after that, UBC extension opens.
5 years after that, Langely extension opens.

So, 20 years before it opens, unless they speed things up.