Transit Fantasies

[OhioGuy]

Would a SkyTrain expansion along Arbutus and Hastings via a downtown subway under Burrard ever make sense, connecting to the Canada Line at Marine Drive, other SkyTrain lines at Burrard and Waterfront stations downtown, and the Millennium Line at Burquitlam (or Millennium & Expo lines at Lougheed Town Centre)? Downtown stations at Davie Street/St. Paul's Hospital, Robson, Burrard, Waterfront, and somewhere in Gastown?

[fredinno]

[QUOTE=Migrant_Coconut;9504051]You're overlooking 7.4.2 and 7.4.3: elevated stations and impacts to the street and businesses. A 5-7m guideway on a ~20m wide street blocks out most of the sun for most of the day, and a 20m wide station means you need to level both sides of the block and create an equivalent setback for the redevelopment. Cambie/Lougheed get away with it because they're wider, and the businesses aren't streetfronts that go up to the property line; it's not going to end well if you try and pitch that to Sunset or Burnaby Heights.

Thing is, if we're worried about effects on street businesses and lack of lighting (rather than just noise), we should consider the entire width of the roadway (widewalks and roads). That gives you 30m on Broadway, Lougheed is 35m (depending on where you measure it, including sidewalks. Width varies from 30m to 40m+.)

So assuming we really need those 5 m, that's 2.5m on each side for future redevelopments.
A lot of the new(er) buildings, like 78 E Broadway already have maybe 0.5-1m setbacks from the existing road/old streetfront line.

I don't think this is a deal-breaker.

Also, the businesses that are being built DO frequently have streetfront shops (the Amazing Brentwood).


Also, regarding stations:

Stations located along the elevated guideway would have land requirements similar to the tunneled
option.

That leaves NIMBYs. Which you're probably right about.

TransLink said it. An independent line isn't on the table at the moment, if ever; all current options utilize existing Expo depots and OMCs. In the case of First Narrows/Norgate, the line would branch off from Burrard and go to Central Lonsdale (replacing the 240), and Norgate would most likely have a station at Welch, then Pemberton, then Cap Mall. AFAIK the latter isn't much of a destination either.

Since we're not counting the Phibbs redevelopment, Second Narrows connects to Park & Tilford and Lonsdale Quay in every option.

Because you said that Second Narrows is an inferior route for NS commuters. It's not, so long as it goes all the way from Phibbs to PR... which Norgate definitely doesn't.
Methinks you misread part of my comment: that 32% of traffic headed to Vancouver is split between both Narrows.

1. The issue's not Phibbs, the issue is the high slope and lack of development potential/existence from Phibbs to St. Davids Ave.

2. If we're going to be purist to the original report, there's no connection on Gold and Purple to Park Royal. Also, all options end at Lonsdale.

3.

An independent line isn't on the table at the moment, if ever;

Purple is an independent line on the report, so I guess that's off the table?

There's not much of a reason for a station at Welch. Now that I look at it closer, the Welch location is most likely due to the lack of space further east to make an exit/entrance.

My guess as to why it's going what it is is due to this being an alignment study, not a comprehensive report on the alternatives- so you'd want to simplify 3A by assuming a connection to Expo rather than an extension to eg. Hastings. If so, you'd see cost/benefit analyses and station locations.

Trucks aren't buses. Not only are you going to have a hard time turning a bus lane into a truck lane, you're going to have an equally hard time getting cars not to follow. Far as they're concerned, it means "general traffic is welcome."

Pretty sure once the fines start rolling in, people will realize that they should probably follow the signs.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Would a SkyTrain expansion along Arbutus and Hastings via a downtown subway under Burrard ever make sense, connecting to the Canada Line at Marine Drive, other SkyTrain lines at Burrard and Waterfront stations downtown, and the Millennium Line at Burquitlam (or Millennium & Expo lines at Lougheed Town Centre)? Downtown stations at Davie Street/St. Paul's Hospital, Robson, Burrard, Waterfront, and somewhere in Gastown?
[/img]

I've thought that if Arbutus is ever used for rapid transit, it would provide an opportunity for a station or two in the heart of the West End.
If the Hastings Line does not interline with the Expo Line at Waterfront, that could provide an opportunity for West End station(s) and a future springboard for an Arbutus Line.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Would a SkyTrain expansion along Arbutus and Hastings via a downtown subway under Burrard ever make sense, connecting to the Canada Line at Marine Drive, other SkyTrain lines at Burrard and Waterfront stations downtown, and the Millennium Line at Burquitlam (or Millennium & Expo lines at Lougheed Town Centre)? Downtown stations at Davie Street/St. Paul's Hospital, Robson, Burrard, Waterfront, and somewhere in Gastown?

The problem is that they limit Skytrain to a 6% grade so there's no way it would make it up (even to the Burnaby Mountain Parkway and Gaglardi Way intersection) and back down Burnaby Mountain to the Evergreen extension. The (somewhat) planned gondola makes more sense for a connection there.

So then we're stuck with figuring out an eastern terminus for a Hastings line. At the moment it doesn't make much sense to continue it to the start of Burnaby Mountain Parkway - maybe Kootenay Loop for now.

Originally Posted by officedweller

I've thought that if Arbutus is ever used for rapid transit, it would provide an opportunity for a station or two in the heart of the West End.
If the Hastings Line does not interline with the Expo Line at Waterfront, that could provide an opportunity for West End station(s) and a future springboard for an Arbutus Line.

Assuming it makes sense to continue an Arbutus line into downtown Van, then it would also make sense to connect it to a Hastings line. I thought the idea of connecting it over by Stadium Station and avoiding the Expo Line tunnel was a good one.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Thing is, if we're worried about effects on street businesses and lack of lighting (rather than just noise), we should consider the entire width of the roadway (widewalks and roads). That gives you 30m on Broadway, Lougheed is 35m (depending on where you measure it, including sidewalks. Width varies from 30m to 40m+.)

So assuming we really need those 5 m, that's 2.5m on each side for future redevelopments.
A lot of the new(er) buildings, like 78 E Broadway already have maybe 0.5-1m setbacks from the existing road/old streetfront line.

I don't think this is a deal-breaker.

Also, the businesses that are being built DO frequently have streetfront shops (the Amazing Brentwood).

Brentwood Station is 30m wide, 50m including the stairs and escalators. And the mall's new businesses have an additional 10m setback from the road on top of that.

You only have 30m total on Broadway at the major intersections; the rest is 20-25m from building to building. The road itself is less than 19m wide even at Cambie and Kingsway, and drops to 15m at Greektown. So either we start knocking down mom & pops and midrises, or we call the whole thing off.

Originally Posted by fredinno

1. The issue's not Phibbs, the issue is the high slope and lack of development potential/existence from Phibbs to St. Davids Ave.

2. If we're going to be purist to the original report, there's no connection on Gold and Purple to Park Royal. Also, all options end at Lonsdale.

3.
Purple is an independent line on the report, so I guess that's off the table?

There's not much of a reason for a station at Welch. Now that I look at it closer, the Welch location is most likely due to the lack of space further east to make an exit/entrance.

My guess as to why it's going what it is is due to this being an alignment study, not a comprehensive report on the alternatives- so you'd want to simplify 3A by assuming a connection to Expo rather than an extension to eg. Hastings. If so, you'd see cost/benefit analyses and station locations.

---

Pretty sure once the fines start rolling in, people will realize that they should probably follow the signs.

Not much of a reason for a station at Pemberton either, but TransLink's going to want/need a station at least every thousand metres.
One could say the same about Norgate. At least East 3rd is getting a whole bunch of townhouses by the substation.

There isn't, but a quick glance at an elevation map shows it's much easier to get a train to Park Royal via 3rd than Phibbs via Keith.

I stand corrected. Still doesn't change the fact that a brand new line under downtown is not on the table. Equally likely is that TransLink doesn't want that kind of hassle; using the infrastructure they have now - or making new infrastructure in Burnaby or the North Shore - is easier from a supply-side perspective.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

So then we're stuck with figuring out an eastern terminus for a Hastings line. At the moment it doesn't make much sense to continue it to the start of Burnaby Mountain Parkway - maybe Kootenay Loop for now.

I think we want to get it to at least Willingdon, if not Kensington or Sperling.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Brentwood Station is 30m wide, 50m including the stairs and escalators. And the mall's new businesses have an additional 10m setback from the road on top of that.

You only have 30m total on Broadway at the major intersections; the rest is 20-25m from building to building. The road itself is less than 19m wide even at Cambie and Kingsway, and drops to 15m at Greektown. So either we start knocking down mom & pops and midrises, or we call the whole thing off.



Not much of a reason for a station at Pemberton either, but TransLink's going to want/need a station at least every thousand metres.
One could say the same about Norgate. At least East 3rd is getting a whole bunch of townhouses by the substation.

There isn't, but a quick glance at an elevation map shows it's much easier to get a train to Park Royal via 3rd than Phibbs via Keith.

I stand corrected. Still doesn't change the fact that a brand new line under downtown is not on the table. Equally likely is that TransLink doesn't want that kind of hassle; using the infrastructure they have now - or making new infrastructure in Burnaby or the North Shore - is easier from a supply-side perspective.

I'm not sure how you're measuring Brentwood, but I'm getting 20m. Not to mention Brentwood is one of the larger/more extravagant Skytrain stations.
And you're being contradicted by the report you linked. Again, it explicitly states the effects in terms of property destruction at the stations would be similar for both elevated and underground. The underground stations are cut-and-cover.

The setback appears to be voluntary. Also, at no point driving and walking at Brentwood did I feel the shade. It's not Expo Blvd. This is more of a subjective preference thing than anything else.
This worry over the shading kind of reminds me of the worry over losing parking spaces for cycling. Because apparently, no one who cycles or walks or uses transit goes to the shops, and no one goes to a store that's in the shade... (lol).
The increases of foot traffic due to the subway will vastly counteract any losses from shading.


TBF, there's tons of easy developable land and Pemberton is in between 2 FTAs. Also, it has an R2 station. Also, it's not hampered by RGS industrial designation.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I'm not sure how you're measuring Brentwood, but I'm getting 20m. Not to mention Brentwood is one of the larger/more extravagant Skytrain stations.
And you're being contradicted by the report you linked. Again, it explicitly states the effects in terms of property destruction at the stations would be similar for both elevated and underground. The underground stations are cut-and-cover.

The setback appears to be voluntary. Also, at no point driving and walking at Brentwood did I feel the shade. It's not Expo Blvd. This is more of a subjective preference thing than anything else.
This worry over the shading kind of reminds me of the worry over losing parking spaces for cycling. Because apparently, no one who cycles or walks or uses transit goes to the shops, and no one goes to a store that's in the shade... (lol).
The increases of foot traffic due to the subway will vastly counteract any losses from shading.


TBF, there's tons of easy developable land and Pemberton is in between 2 FTAs. Also, it has an R2 station. Also, it's not hampered by RGS industrial designation.

We're definitely using different rulers; I'm only getting 20m at the narrowest point. Brentwood may be wide and frilly, but it's on the median, so it's more relevant to a Broadway build.
That's weird... maybe they're assuming the stations move to one side of the street, so they only need to knock down that block just like an underground; a median station would require the block on the other side too, correct?

You know my record, I'm hardly opposed to shading or large structures... but there's eventually a limit. We agree that Brentwood is perfectly fine and non-oppressive, but that doesn't mean it'd work everywhere; the far side of the M-Line viaduct up to the planters is the entire width of Broadway, store to store, so a viaduct down the middle there would create a completely different streetscape.

Ignore the rail line - still plenty of developable land (some of which is already being developed) at Park & Tilford and Moodyville, as well as corresponding R2 stops. Also between two FTAs, mind you.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We're definitely using different rulers; I'm only getting 20m at the narrowest point. Brentwood may be wide and frilly, but it's on the median, so it's more relevant to a Broadway build.
That's weird... maybe they're assuming the stations move to one side of the street, so they only need to knock down that block just like an underground; a median station would require the block on the other side too, correct?

You know my record, I'm hardly opposed to shading or large structures... but there's eventually a limit. We agree that Brentwood is perfectly fine and non-oppressive, but that doesn't mean it'd work everywhere; the far side of the M-Line viaduct up to the planters is the entire width of Broadway, store to store, so a viaduct down the middle there would create a completely different streetscape.

Ignore the rail line - still plenty of developable land (some of which is already being developed) at Park & Tilford and Moodyville, as well as corresponding R2 stops. Also between two FTAs, mind you.

Either way, the other stations are 20m wide (being about as narrow as Brentwood at the narrowest point.)
Shadowing, then, would be a major issue around the stations.
I guess this is where you would want to demolish and redevelop everything with extra-wide setbacks on the sides of the station as the station is developed if you you would want more sunlight in.
Maybe Translink could use them as part of rental/retail RE portfolio for extra cash?

Most likely, the station itself can fit inside Broadway- but access requires demolishing a nearby block and building a bridge to the station (since there's not enough space under the station itself for station access.)
Going to the side of the road would mean way more than 1 block demolished.

the far side of the M-Line viaduct up to the planters

Not sure what you're referring to. Sorry.




I said slopes and industrial land.
The rail yards and ports halve the developable land. Those aren't going anywhere.
Other than Park & Tilford itself, most of the area there is barred from non-industrial development:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...nMapPoster.pdf
https://gisext2.cnv.org/PDFMaps/Sche...0Use_11x17.pdf
Thus, development on Park and Tilford will be limited (eg. medium density commercial), and CNV has not even bothered to rezone it anyways (it may even revert to industrial, eg. as an expansion of North Shore Studios, which are probably the reason there's am R2 station there... maybe. Dunno.)

Moodyville is on a large slope, and is either difficult to access (from Marine Dr.) or requires boring (E. 3rd St.)- note that the Translink plans assume a terminus at Lonsdale, so that likely means boring all the way to Lonsdale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Either way, the other stations are 20m wide (being about as narrow as Brentwood at the narrowest point.)
Shadowing, then, would be a major issue around the stations.
I guess this is where you would want to demolish and redevelop everything with extra-wide setbacks on the sides of the station as the station is developed if you you would want more sunlight in.
Maybe Translink could use them as part of rental/retail RE portfolio for extra cash?

Most likely, the station itself can fit inside Broadway- but access requires demolishing a nearby block and building a bridge to the station (since there's not enough space under the station itself for station access.)
Going to the side of the road would mean way more than 1 block demolished.

Not sure what you're referring to. Sorry.

Problem is there's not many blocks left to knock down. All of Mount Pleasant, Oak and Granville have a fair amount of density (much of it new) and successful retail; only directly east of Cambie and west of Arbutus do you get large parcels and/or lot assemblies that can be written off entirely. Might be able to do something with the Safeway at Macdonald, but then getting through Greektown and up Alma? Don't bother.

Street View - the far side of Brentwood's viaduct curb up to the planters is all of Broadway (setbacks included). For once, I'm with the NIMBYs - we're dealing with a much smaller scale than Lougheed or No. 3 Road. Let's have the highrises do the blocking.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I said slopes and industrial land.
The rail yards and ports halve the developable land. Those aren't going anywhere.
Other than Park & Tilford itself, most of the area there is barred from non-industrial development:
http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...nMapPoster.pdf
https://gisext2.cnv.org/PDFMaps/Sche...0Use_11x17.pdf
Thus, development on Park and Tilford will be limited (eg. medium density commercial), and CNV has not even bothered to rezone it anyways (it may even revert to industrial, eg. as an expansion of North Shore Studios, which are probably the reason there's am R2 station there... maybe. Dunno.)

Moodyville is on a large slope, and is either difficult to access (from Marine Dr.) or requires boring (E. 3rd St.)- note that the Translink plans assume a terminus at Lonsdale, so that likely means boring all the way to Lonsdale.

Not disagreeing. Yet if you check the DNV map, you get the same along Welch and Pemberton - it doesn't really become TOD-friendly until Marine Drive, and that street's covered no matter which crossing gets picked.

LBH, it'll have to duck into a tunnel at Lonsdale no matter what alignment they pick. They could probably have the 2nd N route elevated until Heywood Street, at which point they've got to tunnel or go by Low Level (less likely).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Problem is there's not many blocks left to knock down. All of Mount Pleasant, Oak and Granville have a fair amount of density (much of it new) and successful retail; only directly east of Cambie and west of Arbutus do you get large parcels and/or lot assemblies that can be written off entirely. Might be able to do something with the Safeway at Macdonald, but then getting through Greektown and up Alma? Don't bother.

Street View - the far side of Brentwood's viaduct curb up to the planters is all of Broadway (setbacks included). For once, I'm with the NIMBYs - we're dealing with a much smaller scale than Lougheed or No. 3 Road. Let's have the highrises do the blocking.



Not disagreeing. Yet if you check the DNV map, you get the same along Welch and Pemberton - it doesn't really become TOD-friendly until Marine Drive, and that street's covered no matter which crossing gets picked.

LBH, it'll have to duck into a tunnel at Lonsdale no matter what alignment they pick. They could probably have the 2nd N route elevated until Heywood Street, at which point they've got to tunnel or go by Low Level (less likely).

Note that the areas where there is higher density currently also corresponds to the area the Broadway plans for 30-40 stories, with the tallest near the Skytrain Stations (the area of interest). Most of those buildings are going to be land-assembled and demolished - unless they have historical importance; the question is when.
If you're going to expand DT to Broadway, even the current density on the existing high-rises probably isn't going to last. It wouldn't be the first time OK high-rises have been demolished for redevelopment to increase density in Vancouver, nor the last.

Not sure why Greektown is a major issue- at least in theory. There's a lot of low-rise commercial development. In practice, maybe it's more of an issue.

Ah. I would note the same streetview shows the stations being the only place where the shadows go beyond the road lanes (so 12m ish).


The DNV is DNV. CNV rezoned the area around Capilano Mall (which I expect to be the first stop in the North Shore- remember, we're turning East towards Lonsdale), and the Mall itself will likely be densified at some point.

Half this entire thread is about whether we could go elevated on Broadway, and you're telling me they can't go elevated on Lonsdale?
Now, TBF, I DO think they will go underground on Lonsdale- but because otherwise it'd be pretty difficult to extend the line beyond Lonsdale (or at least on an alignment where half the catchment isn't useless. (ie. not Marine Dr.))
That's still a really small section of tunnel, though- it's not even half a km from the end of Squamish FN to Lonsdale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Note that the areas where there is higher density currently also corresponds to the area the Broadway plans for 30-40 stories, with the tallest near the Skytrain Stations (the area of interest). Most of those buildings are going to be land-assembled and demolished - unless they have historical importance; the question is when.
If you're going to expand DT to Broadway, even the current density on the existing high-rises probably isn't going to last. It wouldn't be the first time OK high-rises have been demolished for redevelopment to increase density in Vancouver, nor the last.

Not sure why Greektown is a major issue- at least in theory. There's a lot of low-rise commercial development. In practice, maybe it's more of an issue.

Ah. I would note the same streetview shows the stations being the only place where the shadows go beyond the road lanes (so 12m ish).

That’s my point though: a third of the station-adjacent lots are new builds (bad for the neighbourhood to tear down a place which is well-liked, fully occupied and barely a decade old at the present), another third is under heritage protection (meaning you can’t even change the Kaplan sign), and the last third is probably not going to be happy with a 10+ metre setback cutting into the floorplate. Underground is slightly more expensive, but less of a hassle on the supply side.

Same reason you wouldn’t go elevated on Denman or Davie, which Greektown will probably become sooner or later. It ruins the “village.”

Fair point. Viaduct shadows are likely going to be more of a problem in the morning or evening.

Originally Posted by fredinno

The DNV is DNV. CNV rezoned the area around Capilano Mall (which I expect to be the first stop in the North Shore- remember, we're turning East towards Lonsdale), and the Mall itself will likely be densified at some point.

Half this entire thread is about whether we could go elevated on Broadway, and you're telling me they can't go elevated on Lonsdale?
Now, TBF, I DO think they will go underground on Lonsdale- but because otherwise it'd be pretty difficult to extend the line beyond Lonsdale (or at least on an alignment where half the catchment isn't useless. (ie. not Marine Dr.))
That's still a really small section of tunnel, though- it's not even half a km from the end of Squamish FN to Lonsdale.

The Norgate alignment comes out by Whonoak – that’s an unprecedented 2-3 km worth of land between there and a Cap Mall Station. So either TransLink somehow convinces Indian Reserve #5 or the sleepy end of Norgate to start rapidly densifying, or they explain why they’ve seemingly broken their own rules in order to to pass them over.
Again, Cap Mall itself is likely covered no matter what (not sure why, the numbers say it has even less traffic than Lansdowne); AFAIK the debate is about Phibbs-Moodyville vs Norgate, and so far both are pretty much half-useless in equal measure.

And I’ve been pretty consistent in saying why above-grade on Broadway is probably a bad idea. Ditto Lonsdale; 3rd, 13th and Esplanade are off limits because of all the new mid and high-rises, and there’s no way in hell North Van lets anybody put a station in the middle of Victoria Park unless it’s an underground one. Either way, an elevated First Narrows line is going to have a very hard time past Chesterfield.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Norgate alignment comes out by Whonoak – that’s an unprecedented 2-3 km worth of land between there and a Cap Mall Station. So either TransLink somehow convinces Indian Reserve #5 or the sleepy end of Norgate to start rapidly densifying, or they explain why they’ve seemingly broken their own rules in order to to pass them over.
Again, Cap Mall itself is likely covered no matter what (not sure why, the numbers say it has even less traffic than Lansdowne); AFAIK the debate is about Phibbs-Moodyville vs Norgate, and so far both are pretty much half-useless in equal measure.

And I’ve been pretty consistent in saying why above-grade on Broadway is probably a bad idea. Ditto Lonsdale; 3rd, 13th and Esplanade are off limits because of all the new mid and high-rises, and there’s no way in hell North Van lets anybody put a station in the middle of Victoria Park unless it’s an underground one. Either way, an elevated First Narrows line is going to have a very hard time past Chesterfield.

IIRC there are ideas floating around to redevelop the Capilano Mall site to include residential in addition to the commercial space. As for the reserve, they would appear to already have plans for more development:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/squa...rdable-housing

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That’s my point though: a third of the station-adjacent lots are new builds (bad for the neighbourhood to tear down a place which is well-liked, fully occupied and barely a decade old at the present), another third is under heritage protection (meaning you can’t even change the Kaplan sign), and the last third is probably not going to be happy with a 10+ metre setback cutting into the floorplate. Underground is slightly more expensive, but less of a hassle on the supply side.

Same reason you wouldn’t go elevated on Denman or Davie, which Greektown will probably become sooner or later. It ruins the “village.”

Fair point. Viaduct shadows are likely going to be more of a problem in the morning or evening.



The Norgate alignment comes out by Whonoak – that’s an unprecedented 2-3 km worth of land between there and a Cap Mall Station. So either TransLink somehow convinces Indian Reserve #5 or the sleepy end of Norgate to start rapidly densifying, or they explain why they’ve seemingly broken their own rules in order to to pass them over.
Again, Cap Mall itself is likely covered no matter what (not sure why, the numbers say it has even less traffic than Lansdowne); AFAIK the debate is about Phibbs-Moodyville vs Norgate, and so far both are pretty much half-useless in equal measure.

And I’ve been pretty consistent in saying why above-grade on Broadway is probably a bad idea. Ditto Lonsdale; 3rd, 13th and Esplanade are off limits because of all the new mid and high-rises, and there’s no way in hell North Van lets anybody put a station in the middle of Victoria Park unless it’s an underground one. Either way, an elevated First Narrows line is going to have a very hard time past Chesterfield.

TBF, the new buildings were in expectation of Broadway Subway being tunneled. If the developers knew it was going to be elevated, they might have put more setbacks in their plans or built elsewhere.
I doubt there's a shortage of developers wanting to build next to Skytrain.
You can also do the same thing with the lost land from setbacks as NYC did with air rights over certain historical buildings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjrfyUPClSM3
Basically, allowing developers to go higher, or selling the air rights over the station + setback.

I don't think Davie or Denman are going to survive in their current form for another 30 years. We saw what happened to the South False Creek Plan. Vancouver can't and shouldn't pull off another West End Plan in the West End in 2040- it's too close to DT to keep in its current mixed high-rise state for much longer. Especially as the existing towers are going to have to be renovated or torn down at some point.

I don't know if Greektown would survive Broadway Skytrain without massive redevelopment- even if it was kept at <20 stories, you're still looking at tearing down and rebuilding the entire thing.

If so, the whole point of trying to preserve Greektown is a bit moot anyways. It's not that I don't like it. It's that I don't think it makes sense. How many people here complained about lack of density around Royal Oak or Nanaimo or Rupert (well, not anymore, I guess)?



Look at 3A more closely:
I've already said a station is unlikely at the rail tracks. You need space to get the rail above ground anyways, so any station near the rail tracks would be very deep and expensive- not worth the trouble.
No one said you couldn't put a branch towards West Vancouver later. The assumption in all cases is to go to Lonsdale first.


Any Skytrain likely has to hit Lonsdale Quay, as there's scant space anywhere for a large bus loop anywhere else BUT the Quay. Also, CNV has made a lot of investment there that would be wasted otherwise.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

IIRC there are ideas floating around to redevelop the Capilano Mall site to include residential in addition to the commercial space. As for the reserve, they would appear to already have plans for more development:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/squa...rdable-housing

Commendable for sure, but is 95 new units enough to justify a station? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBF, the new buildings were in expectation of Broadway Subway being tunneled. If the developers knew it was going to be elevated, they might have put more setbacks in their plans or built elsewhere.
I doubt there's a shortage of developers wanting to build next to Skytrain.
You can also do the same thing with the lost land from setbacks as NYC did with air rights over certain historical buildings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjrfyUPClSM3
Basically, allowing developers to go higher, or selling the air rights over the station + setback.

I don't think Davie or Denman are going to survive in their current form for another 30 years. We saw what happened to the South False Creek Plan. Vancouver can't and shouldn't pull off another West End Plan in the West End in 2040- it's too close to DT to keep in its current mixed high-rise state for much longer. Especially as the existing towers are going to have to be renovated or torn down at some point.

I don't know if Greektown would survive Broadway Skytrain without massive redevelopment- even if it was kept at <20 stories, you're still looking at tearing down and rebuilding the entire thing.

If so, the whole point of trying to preserve Greektown is a bit moot anyways. It's not that I don't like it. It's that I don't think it makes sense. How many people here complained about lack of density around Royal Oak or Nanaimo or Rupert (well, not anymore, I guess)?

I'm arguing there shouldn't be setbacks in the first place. Lougheed's wide enough to coexist with viaducts, but Broadway will end up losing potential growth and walkability. An underground station just needs to be worked into the lobby, end of story.

We don't disagree; the West End will become more like the CBD, Kitsilano will become more like the West End. That doesn't make either neighbourhood more viaduct-friendly.
Greektown's a mix of mom & pops and 7-floor apartments at the moment; I mention Denman and Davie because it's easy to see ~20 floors at Alma + Macdonald and surrounding Broadway, while the village itself grows at its own pace. After all, Nanaimo and 29th have been frozen in time since '86, and Granville Mall is legally capped at 3.5 FSR.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Look at 3A more closely:
I've already said a station is unlikely at the rail tracks. You need space to get the rail above ground anyways, so any station near the rail tracks would be very deep and expensive- not worth the trouble.
No one said you couldn't put a branch towards West Vancouver later. The assumption in all cases is to go to Lonsdale first.

Any Skytrain likely has to hit Lonsdale Quay, as there's scant space anywhere for a large bus loop anywhere else BUT the Quay. Also, CNV has made a lot of investment there that would be wasted otherwise.

While I stand corrected, that doesn't mean Cap Mall is the first - assuming I've read it correctly, the tunnel portal emerges near McBride, so there's enough theoretical room for a Pemberton station. Which - sans densification that may or may not happen - is going to be as useful as halal pork, but has to be done for the sake of fairness.

I think for the sake of intra-North Shore trips, we want Park Royal to Phibbs as a continuous line.

Agreed.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not much of a reason for a station at Pemberton either, but TransLink's going to want/need a station at least every thousand metres.
One could say the same about Norgate. At least East 3rd is getting a whole bunch of townhouses by the substation.

Translink generally is putting stations every 1500m or more outside of really dense areas... they only get as close as 1000m when they're in the CBD... and even then... the distance between City Centre and Yaletown is over 1000m.

Park Royal, Norgate, Capilano, Lonsdale is the MAX number of stations in that area.
Moodyville and Phibbs are probably stations as well... and depending on where the Moodyville Station is placed, MAYBE a potential Park & Tilford station as an infill contingent upon redevelopment of that area, similar to the station under construction in Richmond.

There's MAYBE a potential to have two stations in Lonsdale at either end, and then move the Moodyville station further east... though this would mean there wouldn't be any easy connection to the seabus.

If the line is closer to the water, there will definitely be fewer stations.

The BONUS of this is travel times will be short for access to downtown for North Vancouverites... and probably even preferable for West Vanners as well... as long as you're close enough to a station. This would be not unlike someone from Production Way opting to take the one-seat 39 min ride downtown, despite it taking longer than the 32 minute M-Line + Expo which requires a transfer.

[twoNeurons]

interesting map of North Vancouver density

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Translink generally is putting stations every 1500m or more outside of really dense areas... they only get as close as 1000m when they're in the CBD... and even then... the distance between City Centre and Yaletown is over 1000m.

Sure, but Rupert-Renfrew and Nanaimo-29th are less than a klick apart, and they're all grass, suburbs and warehouses; ditto 160th-166th (once that gets built) and Sea Island-Templeton. The point is that a Norgate-Brockton crossing is inhibited by the rail line as much as Phibbs.

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Park Royal, Norgate, Capilano, Lonsdale is the MAX number of stations in that area.
Moodyville and Phibbs are probably stations as well... and depending on where the Moodyville Station is placed, MAYBE a potential Park & Tilford station as an infill contingent upon redevelopment of that area, similar to the station under construction in Richmond.

There's MAYBE a potential to have two stations in Lonsdale at either end, and then move the Moodyville station further east... though this would mean there wouldn't be any easy connection to the seabus.

If the line is closer to the water, there will definitely be fewer stations.

The BONUS of this is travel times will be short for access to downtown for North Vancouverites... and probably even preferable for West Vanners as well... as long as you're close enough to a station. This would be not unlike someone from Production Way opting to take the one-seat 39 min ride downtown, despite it taking longer than the 32 minute M-Line + Expo which requires a transfer.

Not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing in the first half: that's indeed the likely outcome for a Second Narrows Crossing, possibly First Narrows depending on alignment. Norgate/Brockton would be the same, except with Norgate Station on Pemberton and no trains to West Van.

I suspect that any option which involves buses crawling past both Taylor Way and the cloverleaf will take more time instead of less; TransLink would still be running buses direct from Park Royal to downtown.
And it's not just about getting between the North Shore and the CBD - we've already got the SeaBus for that (now with more frequency and a new bus loop) - we also need to add Park Royal, BCIT and Hastings to the network, and connect the NS to the Expo and Millennium via Brentwood and Metrotown. The other two options only give us Stanley Park and the West End.

The numbers appear to back this up too. 35,910 riders use both First Narrows routes combined (18,900 riders on West Van-downtown, 17,010 riders on North Van-downtown) 28,930 riders use the Second Narrows to/from Phibbs. So there isn't really one big crossing that North Shore commuters like the most.

[MistyMountain]

Not sure if this ever got posted here but I made this map of what rapid transit in Vancouver could look like by 2050 and posted it on r/Vancouver last summer. Here's the map and here's the link to the thread if you want to read more about how I budgeted it. Full resolution here.

[cganuelas1995]

What? No connection between Granville and Vancouver City Centre?