Transit Fantasies

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And sometimes you misunderstand mine, and I have to explain later... like how you’ve skimmed over my entire explanation for why Queensbury doesn’t work as an exchange. Not a big deal.

False Creek was a streetcar in tandem with SkyTrain on Broadway, and 16th was a proposal by a professor from Thompson-Nicola. The plan was always to get from VCC to UBC via Broadway and 10th; the question was "how."

... That’s even worse. Enough with the Y-junctions, please. If looping around Waterfront to Hastings is confusing, going to the North Shore backwards with only one Waterfront platform is even more so – and it means a bus bridge from the West End to Burrard every time the switch fails - when it could just ride from one to the other straight and cut out Waterfront altogether. Much simpler for everybody involved.

SkyTrain in general works. TransLink’s First Narrows SkyTrain specifically does not, because the major selling points are replacing the SeaBus and buses by saving significant time downtown or to the other SkyTrain lines, and it can’t, and any kind of “fixes” you come up with keep making the problems worse, or introducing new ones.
It's the Pareto principle in action: we can solve First Narrows for maybe 20% of use cases, or solve Second Narrows for everybody. Pretty obvious choice.

We can wrap this up any time you want. It’s you trying to persuade me (and several other posters) that you have a better solution than TransLink's, when you more than likely don’t; those of us who actually use the SeaBus remain unconvinced. Best to save this one for NIMBY Rails and call it a day.

1. I don't have a better solution than Translink's.
This is Translink's solution, without the Burrard section.

Remember, you're the one proposing to extend Purple all the way to freaking Royal Oak, something TransLink didn't propose either, to allow the OMC connection.

2. Fine.
2 new station platforms, same as on the other lines.
No Y-junctions or recursive lines or spurs (outside of the Norgate/Cap Mall split).
You can even have the station platform at Burrard and have Hastings extend there instead (let's pretend Canada-Expo transfers don't exist) if Waterfront isn't viable.

Now consider the Expo extension to NS proposal.


3. TransLink never preferred any option (aside from not 3A). They did the (incomplete) phase 2 for the 2nd Narrows due to lobbying from mayors first. They also did similar things with LRT on Evergreen and Surrey (more complete studies for LRT) for similar reasons before it got canned.

4. Most existing SkyTrain stops in the suburbs have 'mini-exchanges' to catch buses passing near it. Evergreen Extension, for example, has one on nearly every one except Inlet Center (maybe, depending on the definition- it's also the least used one, uncoincidentally.)

I also don't see how this is avoided on a 2nd Narrows crossing.
Not everyone wants (or should) get off on the big exchanges (Lonsdale, Phibbs).

SkyTrain in general works. TransLink’s First Narrows SkyTrain specifically does not, because the major selling points are replacing the SeaBus and buses by saving significant time downtown or to the other SkyTrain lines, and it can’t, and any kind of “fixes” you come up with keep making the problems worse, or introducing new ones.
It's the Pareto principle in action: we can solve First Narrows for maybe 20% of use cases, or solve Second Narrows for everybody. Pretty obvious choice.

I could say the same thing of you, funny.


Calm down.

[dleung]

I was thinking something like this, and bringing the rapid bus to new terminals at Lonsdale and Commercial Dr N:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If anybody's willing to click back through 60+ pages, waves already tried something like that. Made sense at the time, but in hindsight, there's some obvious drawbacks: for starters, crossing the longest and (almost) deepest part of the harbour, further crowding the busiest stretch of the Expo, and not being able to service the entire R2 corridor without either a spur or a separate line.

And don't count on Phibbs being non-urban forever.

The crossing is about as deep as the 2A option, and half the direct distance from Lonsdale to Waterfront...? They can always add platforms at Waterfront. If it's crowded, then it's being efficient.

Phibbs is 3 sides no-mans land - I think it's unfortunate that the city decided to dump its housing aspirations around a remote bus interchange rather than focusing on Lonsdale-adjacent

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I guess a crossing further west would be slightly worse for connectivity to CapU, North Woods, and Deep Cove. And if the NS end of the crossing was west of the terminals Park & Tilford wouldn't be directly served either.

If Translink follows the purple alignment I can't imagine running Skytrain 2/3 of the way down Hastings between Willingdon and Victoria and not going all the way to DT Vancouver. But then you're dealing with branching and I would hate to cut the Willingdon and Hastings frequencies in half.

If Translink follows the gold alignment maybe crossing right after the denser areas of DTES and Grandview-Woodlands would be considered, but again that feels half-assed. If (when) Hastings gets Skytrain I think there has to be a one-seat ride all the way from DT Vancouver to the PNE.

CapU, and beyond will never be urban. I take your point about the splitting of the Hastings segment, but I guess I'm looking at Hastings as part of a distant-future Willingdon/41st Ave circle line that will overlap with the north shore line to Waterfront. I'm more focused on the immediate need for north shore rapid transit, competing with seabus, and minimizing transfers

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by dleung

I was thinking something like this:

The question I'd have for this layout is who exactly it's intended to serve. West Van - Downtown is probably still going to be faster by bus. Lower Lonsdale to Downtown is 12-13 minutes by your map which is a bit longer than the SeaBus duration of 12 minutes so people will probably continue to take the SeaBus if they are tranferring at Lonsdale Quay. It'll definitely be effective at bringing Marine Drive (Dundarave, Ambleside, Park Royal) West Vancouverites into the City of North Vancouver, and Hastings East Vancouverites downtown, but that kind of ignores the whole inlet crossing. I guess if you live in Norgate or off Fell you have a pretty rapid single connection to Downtown, but that doesn't justify the line to me IMO.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

- snip -

1) A rhetorical suggestion in order to get it to OMC 1/2, since I try to be fair. TransLink has also never suggested a Y-junction at Waterfront (or Waterfront at all), a T-junction at Norgate, a second North Shore line or an extension to Cap, which is all much more wishful thinking.

2) Okay:

SkyTrain: 2-5 minute frequency, 13 minutes Waterfront < - > Lonsdale, 15-18 minutes total
SeaBus: 10-15 minute frequency, 12 minute Waterfront < - > Lonsdale, 22-27 minutes total

Peak SkyTrain advantage: 22 – 13 = 9 minutes
Peak SeaBus advantage: 15 – 12 = 3 minutes
Off-peak SkyTrain advantage: 27 - 13 = 14 minutes
Off-peak SeaBus advantage: 18 – 12 = 6 minutes

12 minutes difference = 6 minutes median = 3-minute advantage, SkyTrain
20 minutes difference = 10 minutes median = 4-minute advantage, SkyTrain

$3-5 billion... to save 3-4 minutes on average, when other RRTs (including Phibbs) save 12-15 for virtually everybody, all-day? Not really worth it.

3) What I see is that TransLink’s giving clear preference to Second Narrows in both planning and action. Even from the political side, it’s all three North Shore mayors, Burnaby’s, and Vancouver currently on board (Ken Sim prefers Gold): the next election has to flip at least three of five to stop a green light for Second.

4) And I explained why even that doesn’t work: no other existing bus routes can shift to Queensbury, so unless TransLink makes new ones it’ll just be a more-frequent 228 over and over again.

5) See above: there’s no need for SeaBuses every 2-3 minutes, because even current 10-15 headways are enough to make SkyTrain only marginally competitive.

Way I see it, all the frustration’s on your end.

[Helvetia]

Is there much value in bridging West Van with the City of North Vancouver? They were pretty adamant they didn't want the R2 RapidBus west of Park Royal and I can foresee similar arguments being raised against rail rapid transit.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Helvetia

Is there much value in bridging West Van with the City of North Vancouver? They were pretty adamant they didn't want the R2 RapidBus west of Park Royal and I can foresee similar arguments being raised against rail rapid transit.

DNV isn't any less NIMBY than West Van. There's also more existing density in Ambleside and Park Royal than Phibbs, as well as places like the future Cypress Village (as well as more land in general available to sprawl in not owned by government entities in the Upper Levels up to 1200ft.)

Also, West Van takes Horseshoe Bay buses, which are surprisingly popular.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by dleung

... The crossing is about as deep as the 2A option, and half the direct distance from Lonsdale to Waterfront...? They can always add platforms at Waterfront. If it's crowded, then it's being efficient.

Phibbs is 3 sides no-mans land - I think it's unfortunate that the city decided to dump its housing aspirations around a remote bus interchange rather than focusing on Lonsdale-adjacent

---

CapU, and beyond will never be urban. I take your point about the splitting of the Hastings segment, but I guess I'm looking at Hastings as part of a distant-future Willingdon/41st Ave circle line that will overlap with the north shore line to Waterfront. I'm more focused on the immediate need for north shore rapid transit, competing with seabus, and minimizing transfers

Yes, but the Narrows are even shallower, and only require very-deep tunnel over a short distance.

Think chow has the right of it: you're not replacing the SeaBus or the bus lines over the bridges, and you're cutting out a fair chunk of the east DNV which is already densifying. Centralizing everything into Lonsdale seems like you're creating the exact same spoke-and-hub fiasco that cause the suburbs' traffic problems in the first place. It's not like we can't still create a circle line with Marine Drive and have a Hastings Expo extension bisect it in the middle.

Originally Posted by Helvetia

Is there much value in bridging West Van with the City of North Vancouver? They were pretty adamant they didn't want the R2 RapidBus west of Park Royal and I can foresee similar arguments being raised against rail rapid transit.

Well, West Van's mayor signed on with the SkyTrain, so I don't think the haters have a choice; best they can do is demand a tunnel instead. Most of the traffic is within the North Shore itself, not trying to get to or from it, so they'll need one anyway.

And as mentioned, the 250 and 257 from the Horseshoe Bay terminal go through West Van as well - having a connection to Lonsdale and Willingdon might help relieve pressure on the rest of the network, so TransLink'll want to do it anyway.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by fredinno

DNV isn't any less NIMBY than West Van. There's also more existing density in Ambleside and Park Royal than Phibbs, as well as places like the future Cypress Village (as well as more land in general available to sprawl in not owned by government entities in the Upper Levels up to 1200ft.)

Also, West Van takes Horseshoe Bay buses, which are surprisingly popular.

The difference is that the North Vancouver NIMBY power centres are Deep Cove, Lynn Valley, Upper Lonsdale, and Edgemont, all very far away from the prospective Skytrain routes. As a North Vancouverite born and raised, NIMBYs don't seem to give a fuck about the Lower Lynn/Maplewood area or Marine Drive area (historically both lower income areas closer to industry). Meanwhile, two of the big West Vancouver NIMBY power centres are around the beloved NIMBY villages of Ambleside and Dundarave. Hence, the R2 had no problems getting dedicated bus lanes in the DNV, but the R2 wasn't even allowed to go further than Park Royal.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by dleung

...Phibbs is 3 sides no-mans land - I think it's unfortunate that the city decided to dump its housing aspirations around a remote bus interchange rather than focusing on Lonsdale-adjacent...

Keep in mind, the densification planned for Lynn Creek Town Centre and Maplewood Village Centre are in the District, not the City; the border is at Lynn Creek/Lynnmouth Avenue south of Keith, so the District's densification at LCTC is right up against the boundary. It also has some of the best transit access in the District, along with proximity to shopping and employment, so it seems like a reasonable place to densify.

Originally Posted by fredinno

DNV isn't any less NIMBY than West Van.

As a lifelong District resident - and without discounting the obviously strong NIMBY sentiments in the DNV - I doubt you'd find many District or West Van residents who endorse this.

Originally Posted by fredinno

There's also more existing density in Ambleside and Park Royal than Phibbs, as well as places like the future Cypress Village (as well as more land in general available to sprawl in not owned by government entities in the Upper Levels up to 1200ft.)

Ambleside and Park Royal are established neighbourhoods. Phibbs Exchange is a bus exchange built next to a freeway. Of course there's less density... in the bus exchange. Phibbs is, however, directly adjacent to a newly developing town centre in the District, which is being built in part because it is adjacent to transit.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, West Van takes Horseshoe Bay buses, which are surprisingly popular.

West Vancouver has Horseshoe Bay buses because Horseshoe Bay is part of West Vancouver.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The question I'd have for this layout is who exactly it's intended to serve. West Van - Downtown is probably still going to be faster by bus. Lower Lonsdale to Downtown is 12-13 minutes by your map which is a bit longer than the SeaBus duration of 12 minutes so people will probably continue to take the SeaBus if they are tranferring at Lonsdale Quay. It'll definitely be effective at bringing Marine Drive (Dundarave, Ambleside, Park Royal) West Vancouverites into the City of North Vancouver, and Hastings East Vancouverites downtown, but that kind of ignores the whole inlet crossing. I guess if you live in Norgate or off Fell you have a pretty rapid single connection to Downtown, but that doesn't justify the line to me IMO.

The Seabus is 20 min including a 8 min avg waiting time, so skytrain at 12 min (actually 11 min considering that the same distance from Moody Centre to Burquitlam is 5 min, not 6) + 1.5 min avg waiting time would have a significant advantage. Skytrain from Park Royal to downtown will be slower than the bus outside rush hour, but faster than the bus during rush hour.

It doesn't seem like any route configuration can serve Central Lonsdale and Lower Lonsdale at the same time.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Keep in mind, the densification planned for Lynn Creek Town Centre and Maplewood Village Centre are in the District, not the City; the border is at Lynn Creek/Lynnmouth Avenue south of Keith, so the District's densification at LCTC is right up against the boundary. It also has some of the best transit access in the District, along with proximity to shopping and employment, so it seems like a reasonable place to densify.

Lynn Creek Town Centre won't rival River District, which is too remote to be getting skytrain any time soon. Maplewood won't even rival Steveston. With my proposed alignment, obviously more of the densification efforts will be focused around broad upzoning of Lower Lonsdale.

We shouldn't reward ill-placed density with inefficient transit linkages. Mt Seymour Parkway is a beautiful drive that I hope will never turn into a stroad.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by dleung

Lynn Creek Town Centre won't rival River District, which is too remote to be getting skytrain any time soon. Maplewood won't even rival Steveston. With my proposed alignment, obviously more of the densification efforts will be focused around broad upzoning of Lower Lonsdale.

We shouldn't reward ill-placed density with inefficient transit linkages. Mt Seymour Parkway is a beautiful drive that I hope will never turn into a stroad.

The North Shore urgently needs better east-west connections, especially something that is not impacted by road congestion. There's a reason that the R2 travels the entire distance between the bridges rather than quitting part-time along. As for Lynn Creek, again, why is it "ill-placed"? People work there, people shop there, they have schools and higher education in the area, transit patterns for the northern and eastern parts of the District have long-established routes through there, and now more people can live there. Are you seriously suggesting that the District defers responsibility for the majority of the North Shore's densification to the City?

The reality is that the North Shore has one transit connection - the SeaBus - that is not impacted by road congestion and that has been exceptionally reliable throughout its history. Is it as fast as a Sky train between downtown Vancouver and Lower Lonsdale? Obviously not, but it does work very well for that area. Any new rapid transit options should focus on giving additional connections and servicing different parts of the North Shore, not trying to replace what's already there.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by dleung

We shouldn't reward ill-placed density with inefficient transit linkages. Mt Seymour Parkway is a beautiful drive that I hope will never turn into a stroad.

How exactly does improved transit infrastructure turn a road into a stroad? On the contrary, Mt. Seymour Parkway has always been a stroad but is gradually becoming less of one. It's not fun driving down the parkway and having to come to a stop because someone is reversing out of their driveway onto a separated highway.

I don't even understand why you'd say this, Mt. Seymour Parkway is nowhere near any expected Skytrain extension.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

The reality is that the North Shore has one transit connection - the SeaBus - that is not impacted by road congestion and that has been exceptionally reliable throughout its history. Is it as fast as a Sky train between downtown Vancouver and Lower Lonsdale? Obviously not, but it does work very well for that area. Any new rapid transit options should focus on giving additional connections and servicing different parts of the North Shore, not trying to replace what's already there.

I think some people in this thread are so focused on turning some existing 30 min transit trips to 15 min transit trips that they refuse to consider we can convert 45 minute car trips along with 1h30 transit trips to 30 minute transit trips.

Think about the raison d'êtres for any big transit infrastructure improvements.

1. Capacity increase
This isn't an issue for Lonsdale - Downtown because transit capacity across the inlet is currently fine and it's always an option to add another SeaBus to the fleet
2. Trip conversion
Busing from the North Shore to Downtown isn't actually that bad, busing from the North Shore to anywhere else is a disaster. Converting SeaBus trips to Skytrain trips isn't really in Translink's interest. Converting car trips to transit trips is and having a direct link to the Burnaby town centres makes transit to and from there viable.
3. Future TOD
Downtown and Lower Lonsdale are already well served by transit and can easily support more development. East of Lynn Creek and east of Boundary less so.

Skytrain is cool and we can fantasize about direct as-the-crow-flies routes, but our money is probably better spent elsewhere than replacing the SeaBus with a slightly better option (for people who were using transit anyway).

[Migrant_Coconut]

^This. Plus a circle line from Park Royal to Willingdon to 41st also lets you skip Central Vancouver entirely if you don't absolutely need to go through it (e.g. Horseshoe Bay to Burnaby, Surrey to the PNE, Phibbs to Oakridge). Part of the overall Transport 2050 plan is creating additional metro hubs and relieving demand to/from the downtown core.

Originally Posted by dleung

The Seabus is 20 min including a 8 min avg waiting time, so skytrain at 12 min (actually 11 min considering that the same distance from Moody Centre to Burquitlam is 5 min, not 6) + 1.5 min avg waiting time would have a significant advantage. Skytrain from Park Royal to downtown will be slower than the bus outside rush hour, but faster than the bus during rush hour.

It doesn't seem like any route configuration can serve Central Lonsdale and Lower Lonsdale at the same time...

See above. 13 minutes between Lonsdale and Waterfront and 2-5 minute headways basically makes this the Norgate route in the opposite direction (plus twice as much tunnel), and I already did the math for why that one doesn't replace the SeaBus. Pretty much the only place that does is Waterfront-Lonsdale direct, and that one's already been ruled out.

If the goal is to get Lonsdale and Lower Lynn across the inlet, then no. If the goal is to connect them to each other, then both Phibbs and Park Royal are a resounding success in that regard.

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

The North Shore urgently needs better east-west connections, especially something that is not impacted by road congestion. There's a reason that the R2 travels the entire distance between the bridges rather than quitting part-time along. As for Lynn Creek, again, why is it "ill-placed"? People work there, people shop there, they have schools and higher education in the area, transit patterns for the northern and eastern parts of the District have long-established routes through there, and now more people can live there. Are you seriously suggesting that the District defers responsibility for the majority of the North Shore's densification to the City?...

Very much this. Not only does it have as much potential density as the River District, but logistically, Lower Lynn's a lot easier to get to.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The difference is that the North Vancouver NIMBY power centres are Deep Cove, Lynn Valley, Upper Lonsdale, and Edgemont, all very far away from the prospective Skytrain routes. As a North Vancouverite born and raised, NIMBYs don't seem to give a fuck about the Lower Lynn/Maplewood area or Marine Drive area (historically both lower income areas closer to industry). Meanwhile, two of the big West Vancouver NIMBY power centres are around the beloved NIMBY villages of Ambleside and Dundarave. Hence, the R2 had no problems getting dedicated bus lanes in the DNV, but the R2 wasn't even allowed to go further than Park Royal.

Dundrave more than Ambleside. There's been a bunch of development at Ambleside in recent years.
Also, Park Royal.
West Van treats that entire area similar to how DNV treats Lower Capilano and Lynn Creek.


Blue Bus also didn't want B-Line to go to Dundrave, as it would lower the amount of work they got.

That was the ultimate killer, even when the political winds changed in West Van to allow B-Line to Dundrave.

We'll see if DNV residents appreciate having their parking lanes removed for bus lanes when they build a B-Line to Lynn Valley.
Something tells me they won't.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1) A rhetorical suggestion in order to get it to OMC 1/2, since I try to be fair. TransLink has also never suggested a Y-junction at Waterfront (or Waterfront at all), a T-junction at Norgate, a second North Shore line or an extension to Cap, which is all much more wishful thinking.

2) Okay:


$3-5 billion... to save 3-4 minutes on average, when other RRTs (including Phibbs) save 12-15 for virtually everybody, all-day? Not really worth it.

3) What I see is that TransLink’s giving clear preference to Second Narrows in both planning and action. Even from the political side, it’s all three North Shore mayors, Burnaby’s, and Vancouver currently on board (Ken Sim prefers Gold): the next election has to flip at least three of five to stop a green light for Second.

4) And I explained why even that doesn’t work: no other existing bus routes can shift to Queensbury, so unless TransLink makes new ones it’ll just be a more-frequent 228 over and over again.

5) See above: there’s no need for SeaBuses every 2-3 minutes, because even current 10-15 headways are enough to make SkyTrain only marginally competitive.

Way I see it, all the frustration’s on your end.

1. In my defense, it also says that they want a study and eventual extension/connector for the Norgate crossing to Park Royal - it's just not in the crossing study parameters to consider those sorts of extensions (all crossings end at Lonsdale- if one had a spur to Park Royal, that wouldn't be a fair comparison).
So the T-crossing is covered.
+/- An extra 1-2 mins without the T-crossing and adding an extra stop towards Park Royal.



2. And how much time does a 2nd Narrows crossing save (aside from the Hastings and Willingdon Lines, which are different lines slapped onto a 2nd Narrows crossing to make it viable and honestly don't make for a fair comparison due to their length?)



Park Royal-Waterfront Bus Peak: 28 min
Park Royal-Waterfront Bus Off-Peak: 22 min
Park Royal-Waterfront Skytrain with Waterfront peak on Norgate Crossing: 12 min

Phibbs-Waterfront Peak: 30 min
Phibbs-Waterfront Off-Peak: 25 min
Phibbs-Waterfront Skytrain (9 km): 15 min (compared to VCC-Clark to Sperling-Burnaby Lake)


So basically ~15 min savings for either Phibbs or Park Royal, depending on which one you choose. You can only really choose to optimize for 1, and that's either a 2nd Narrows crossing or a Norgate/1st Narrows crossing (Norgate allows (smaller) time savings for Lonsdale too, and is more well studied, which is why I prefer it, amongst other reasons.)


So, which one (Park Royal or Phibbs) is more important?

The 5 most popular bus lines in the North Shore are in Annual Boardings (2019):
250 (Horseshoe Bay-Downtown): 3,797,000
240 (Lynn Valley-Downtown): 3,477,000
239 (Marine Drive): 3,142,000
257 (Horseshoe Bay-Downtown Express): 1,753,000
255 (Dundrave-Capilano University): 1,461,000
246/249 (Lonsdale - Delbrook - Capilano Road - Downtown): 1,420,000

250, 246/249, and 257 would benefit
239 on Park Royal had similar levels of people entering the system from Park Royal as it did from Phibbs.
BTW, none of these stop in Phibbs.


In terms of how much the bus exchanges are actually used Phibbs and Park Royal are comparable (no exact numbers, though TSPR shows both are heavily used to similar degrees.

Fine, let's add in the bus crossings to Phibbs (130, 28, 210 mostly)

https://translink.maps.arcgis.com/ap...4262c7c5810275
130's ridership is primarily used for BCIT and Brentwood-Metrotown transfers.
Same with 28 (Gilmore-Joyce-Collingwood).
Let's be fair though, and cut their ridership by half (too much IMO, but we didn't include most peak-only buses- so...).
28: 1,075,000
130: 2,172,500
210: 651,500

That's not great.
250 (and 257) is actually most used for West Vancouver Ambleside/Dundrave/Park Royal <> Downtown. So just 1 bus line on 1st Narrows (250) nearly beats all 2nd Narrows crossings in ridership.
And there are 3 more regular + other peak-only buses.


What about density and redevelopment potential?

The Metro Vancouver RGS shows Norgate would offer ~15min time savings to 3 town centers(Ambleside, Lower Capilano, Marine Drive) + Park Royal Mall, which for some reason isn't a town center, but is a huge destination in and of itself.
2nd Narrows offers similar time savings to 2 FTDAs (Lower Lynn, East 3rd).

All 3 municipalities have similar population growth projections/targets (around 20,000 each by 2050), so it's not like Lynn Creek is going to become massively more dense than Ambleside will in the same time period.
http://www.metrovancouver.org/servic...ons_Tables.pdf

TLDR: There's more time savings for more people and more redevelopment from prioritizing Park Royal over Phibbs. At least in the North Shore.

Park Royal-Norgate-Lonsdale-Waterfront also allows all 3 North Shore Municipalities to have Skytrain, while 2nd Narrows leaves West Van out.

The redevelopment and time savings benefits of the Hastings and Willingdon sections of the SkyTrain line to 2nd Narrows outside the NS are different matters.
IMO, they should be separate lines, so weren't included here.

3. TransLink explicitly leaves open all crossing options in both the 2nd Narrows studies they were lobbied to make, as well as Metro 2050, including in the quotes you sent me. ("Metrotown to Park Royal" basically allows for any of the crossing options.)

So basically like Evergreen LRT?

Obviously Burnaby and Vancouver want the 2nd Narrows Crossing.
There's no cost estimate (yet), and it gives them the most Skytrain.
Really easy to support something like that.


Also:
https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2...en-line-story/

Summary: Most people are still asking the question of why the province decided to suddenly switch the Evergreen Line to SkyTrain technology in 2008. I think we should be asking questions about why the LRT design process suddenly stopped, with no reason, back in 2007.

It’s coming to our region, but it’s opening in 2017, which just happens to be yet another delay in a consecutive series. These Evergreen Line delays have injected a new wave of doubt among transit observers here in Metro Vancouver, who may remember a time not too long ago when the Evergreen Line was comparable to a hot potato – hardly anyone could come to an agreement about it.

During the late 2000s the Evergreen Line went through numerous hurdles that we worry about in transit issues today; ranging from funding shortages to planning issues to a lack of clarity in the political commitment to the line itself.

But, to some people, I can imagine the most perplexing thing about the Evergreen Line story was the controversial change from an at-grade Light Rail Transit system, to the currently-being built extension of the existing SkyTrain system. It took people by surprise, changed the focus of the discussion and was so significant that it caught the attention of transit bloggers in other Canadian cities.

The move was controversial because of the creation of a new business case released by the provincial government (hereafter referred to as the “2008 business case”) that overrode a previous business case released by TransLink (the “2006 business case”) for the Evergreen Line as an LRT. A following, final business case by the province(the “2010 business case”) adopted the results of the 2008 business case without making major changes to or addressing its supposed issues.

The new business case explained that its recommendation for SkyTrain (ALRT) on the current corridor was based on 4 key findings:

Ridership – ALRT will produce two and a half times the ridership of Light Rail Transit (LRT) technology; this is consistent with the ridership goals in the Provincial Transit Plan.
Travel Time – ALRT will move people almost twice as fast as LRT (in the NW corridor).
Benefits and Cost – ALRT will achieve greater ridership and improved travel times at a capital cost of $1.4 billion, with overall benefit-cost ratio that favour ALRT over LRT.
System Integration – ALRT will integrate into TransLink’s existing SkyTrain system more efficiently than LRT.
Light Rail advocates who looked into the study insisted that the new analysis, in its rejection of what was supposed to be a sound business case, was biased in favour of SkyTrain – some of which alleged that the switch was a result of insider connections, shady agreements, and other under-the-radar proceedings. 2008 was a time when it wasn’t as clear to people that SkyTrain isn’t a proprietary transit technology and it was probably no surprise that critics of the decision came in waves.

They were joined by others, including City Councils of the time, who expressed concern about some aspects of the newer business case. Two particular major players come into mind:

1. The City of Burnaby released a staff report that injected doubt into the Evergreen Line’s cost estimates, ridership estimates and evaluation. (See [HERE] for report)

“This report recommends that the Province and TransLink undertake to re-evaluate the choice of technology and prepare a business case of LRT technology for the Evergreen Line based on the concerns and questions raised in this report with regard to service speed, ridership estimates, operating and capital costs, inter-operability, community service and other factors.”

2. A Portland-based transportation engineer named Gerald Fox alleged that the analysis had been manipulated to favour SkyTrain. (The original letter was posted [HERE]).

“It is interesting how TransLink has used this cunning method of manipulating analysis to justify SkyTrain in corridor after corridor, and has thus succeeded in keeping its proprietary rail system expanding.”

This has happened before.

4. 255, 232, and 228 all have bus stops in that area. Again, having mini-exchanges around every SkyTrain stop is par for the course.
3 routes on the Queensbury stop is on the lower end in terms of # of buses for a mini-exchange suburban SkyTrain stop.


5.

Way I see it, all the frustration’s on your end.

You've been extremely rude to me for about a week.

Yeah, I think you're frustrated.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

In my defense, it also says that they want a study and eventual extension/connector for the Norgate crossing to Park Royal.

Park Royal-Norgate-Lonsdale-Waterfront also allows all 3 North Shore Municipalities to have Skytrain, while 2nd Narrows leaves West Van out.

Obviously Burnaby and Vancouver want the 2nd Narrows Crossing.

Page 38 of Transport 2050: 10-Year Priorities for Translink says this:

Lynn Valley – Downtown/Lonsdale (BRT)
Connect Lynn Valley centre in the District of North Vancouver with Lonsdale and potentially, if feasible, all
the way to downtown Vancouver via the Lions Gate Bridge with a traffic-separated BRT line featuring
dedicated bus lanes and transit signal priority.

Page 39 says this:

Metrotown to Park Royal (BRT + study alternatives)
In recognition of the acute congestion challenges facing the North Shore, the region commits to delivering a
traffic-separated rapid transit connection between Park Royal and Metrotown as soon as possible:
• Recognizing that this is a highly complex and constrained corridor, we will immediately begin the
required planning work to advance a BRT option so that construction of rapid transit can begin
within years 0-5.
• In parallel, we will advance business case development to confirm whether the ultimate technology
will be Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail Transit, or SkyTrain (or a combination), and to confirm the
associated alignment, terminus locations, and degree of grade separation including options for a
dedicated transit crossing of Burrard Inlet.
• In the meantime, the region commits to increased bus service and transit priority measures, as
feasible, between Park Royal and Metrotown to improve bus travel times, operating costs, and grow
ridership in advance of more permanent rapid transit investment.

I think it is clear based on these two excerpts that Metrotown to Park Royal is the higher priority for additional transit solutions over and above BRT. And the document quoted above is dated June 2022, compared to your favorite reading material, Stage 2 of the BIRT study, which is dated September 2020, We should probably go off of the most recent study.

Now, perhaps you are correct that "Metrotown to Park Royal" will utilize a crossing option other than Second Narrows, but I think it is fair to say that is improbable. Can you imagine how many separate construction and funding phases would be needed to run Skytrain all the way up Willingdon, Hastings, and across First Narrows? And, assuming the east/west North Shore connection is a priority, back down Marine Drive? That's 30 kilometers of track at least tunneled under Downtown and possibly all under Marine Drive as well, 20+ new stations, a First Narrows crossing, maybe a new OMC... I would love for the network to increase by 30% all in one shot but that seems highly unlikely. Meanwhile, a route via Second Narrows would be 10 kilometers shorter.

As for the Municipalities, West Van will have Skytrain via Second Narrows (after all, Park Royal is in West Vancouver). West Van may not get the super speedy Skytrain direct to Downtown, but it will get the same east-west connection that the rest of the North Shore gets and it will also have a connection to the rest of the Metro that bypasses Downtown.

And I think you are short-changing a number of other cities that likely prefer a Second Narrows crossing including Surrey, New West, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Langley... In fact, the only city that wouldn't prefer the Second Narrows crossing is Richmond, and maybe Vancouver if City Hall still wants all transit to run through Downtown.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

-snip-

1) That entire subargument started because you said Norgate would eventually go to Phibbs. Norgate does make sense as a second crossing in 2060 and onwards (connecting to one station of the Phibbs extension), but that would be a capacity solution, not a time-saving solution. That’s probably what TransLink has in mind.

Both Gold and Purple are clearly shown connecting Park Royal.

2) Add another 4 minutes and a 2-5 minute transfer window to the Park Royal-Norgate SkyTrain, because you have to switch trains (assuming they’re separate Expo-Norgate and Park Royal-Phibbs lines... instead of branches/spurs of one big line, which halves frequency and doubles the window). That’s 7-10 minutes’ advantage at peak. Still underperforming compared to other SkyTrains.

You want to talk about “skimming?” I’ve posted the actual bus ridership at least twice this month, and it’s been ignored just as many times.
The 250 and 257 would keep going downtown, because truncating at Norgate or a Park Royal spur and taking that downtown instead is just as long (or longer) for its passengers. That leaves the remaining bus routes, and of those, Phibbs wins.

3) And yet all of TransLink’s planning within the next ten years is for Second Narrows. Evergreen’s LRT and RRT plans followed the exact same route as each other, so IDK what you’re trying to say here... that a Phibbs SkyTrain might be replaced with a streetcar (then back again), like Langley? It’s possible.

4) Here’s the map again: no, because the 255 links up with the 227 and shortens the commute between Lynn Creek and Lonsdale; the 232 is the only route covering Brooksbank and all of Keith; they can’t move. All that’s left for Queensbury is the 228.

5) It’s just as easy to insist that you’ve been rude to me, but I’ll be the bigger person and figure that you’re simply passionate about your argument. I suggest you do the same.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

... And I think you are short-changing a number of other cities that likely prefer a Second Narrows crossing including Surrey, New West, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Langley... In fact, the only city that wouldn't prefer the Second Narrows crossing is Richmond, and maybe Vancouver if City Hall still wants all transit to run through Downtown.

That's exactly what Ken Sim has in mind... but he wants the Gold Line (downtown via Second Narrows), not Norgate or Park Royal; all three North Shore mayors like Purple better. So at best it's Richmond vs. every other mayor.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Page 38 of Transport 2050: 10-Year Priorities for Translink says this:



Page 39 says this:



I think it is clear based on these two excerpts that Metrotown to Park Royal is the higher priority for additional transit solutions over and above BRT. And the document quoted above is dated June 2022, compared to your favorite reading material, Stage 2 of the BIRT study, which is dated September 2020, We should probably go off of the most recent study.

Now, perhaps you are correct that "Metrotown to Park Royal" will utilize a crossing option other than Second Narrows, but I think it is fair to say that is improbable. Can you imagine how many separate construction and funding phases would be needed to run Skytrain all the way up Willingdon, Hastings, and across First Narrows? And, assuming the east/west North Shore connection is a priority, back down Marine Drive? That's 30 kilometers of track at least tunneled under Downtown and possibly all under Marine Drive as well, 20+ new stations, a First Narrows crossing, maybe a new OMC... I would love for the network to increase by 30% all in one shot but that seems highly unlikely. Meanwhile, a route via Second Narrows would be 10 kilometers shorter.

As for the Municipalities, West Van will have Skytrain via Second Narrows (after all, Park Royal is in West Vancouver). West Van may not get the super speedy Skytrain direct to Downtown, but it will get the same east-west connection that the rest of the North Shore gets and it will also have a connection to the rest of the Metro that bypasses Downtown.

And I think you are short-changing a number of other cities that likely prefer a Second Narrows crossing including Surrey, New West, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Langley... In fact, the only city that wouldn't prefer the Second Narrows crossing is Richmond, and maybe Vancouver if City Hall still wants all transit to run through Downtown.

Extending Expo to Park Royal is also Skytrain from Metrotown to Park Royal.

Langley/Surrey/TriCities - North Shore is just as easy/fast from an Expo extension to NS as it is from Purple. Arguably easier, because it's 1 line.

The main downside is extra congestion on Expo.
The other main loser is Burnaby, who loses a bunch of Skyrain length.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

1) That entire subargument started because you said Norgate would eventually go to Phibbs. Norgate does make sense as a second crossing in 2060 and onwards (connecting to one station of the Phibbs extension), but that would be a capacity solution, not a time-saving solution. That’s probably what TransLink has in mind.

Both Gold and Purple are clearly shown connecting Park Royal.

2) Add another 4 minutes and a 2-5 minute transfer window to the Park Royal-Norgate SkyTrain, because you have to switch trains (assuming they’re separate Expo-Norgate and Park Royal-Phibbs lines... instead of branches/spurs of one big line, which halves frequency and doubles the window). That’s 7-10 minutes’ advantage at peak. Still underperforming compared to other SkyTrains.

You want to talk about “skimming?” I’ve posted the actual bus ridership at least twice this month, and it’s been ignored just as many times.
The 250 and 257 would keep going downtown, because truncating at Norgate or a Park Royal spur and taking that downtown instead is just as long (or longer) for its passengers. That leaves the remaining bus routes, and of those, Phibbs wins.

3) And yet all of TransLink’s planning within the next ten years is for Second Narrows. Evergreen’s LRT and RRT plans followed the exact same route as each other, so IDK what you’re trying to say here... that a Phibbs SkyTrain might be replaced with a streetcar (then back again), like Langley? It’s possible.

4) Here’s the map again: no, because the 255 links up with the 227 and shortens the commute between Lynn Creek and Lonsdale; the 232 is the only route covering Brooksbank and all of Keith; they can’t move. All that’s left for Queensbury is the 228.

5) It’s just as easy to insist that you’ve been rude to me, but I’ll be the bigger person and figure that you’re simply passionate about your argument. I suggest you do the same.

Both Gold and Purple are clearly shown connecting Park Royal.

Not on Phase 1.
Norgate/1st Narrows never had a Phase 2 because the mayors wanted Gold and Purple to be studied because they liked it.

If they did, I would agree with you.


Depends on how the trains are synchronized. If they come in at the same time, people can go from 1 to the other pretty quickly.

Because that one is cheating.
You're including buses were 70% of the riders are not headed to Phibbs.

You could build a Skytrain on Hastings or Willingdon without including one to Phibbs.
In fact, that captures most of the ridership.


Imagine if the 70% of the ridership on the First Narrows options are going to and from the West End only, but the bus lines extended to Park Royal.
Would you still consider the entire corridor, or just the section to the West End?

Or on 250:
The vast majority of riders are going from Park Royal+ Ambleside <> Downtown.
Should we have Skytrain all the way to Horseshoe Bay because the bus line happens to extend all the way there?

3) And yet all of TransLink’s planning within the next ten years is for Second Narrows. Evergreen’s LRT and RRT plans followed the exact same route as each other, so IDK what you’re trying to say here... that a Phibbs SkyTrain might be replaced with a streetcar (then back again), like Langley? It’s possible.

https://darylvsworld.files.wordpress...iness-case.pdf
The 2006 report clearly showed Evergreen Skytrain and LRT had different requirements and engineering and alignment (as a consequence from being at-grade).

About on the same level as having a T-spur instead of a Y-Spur.



My point is that one will likely be BRT and the other Skytrain, and that having the one that's Skytrain cross at Phibbs doesn't make sense.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's exactly what Ken Sim has in mind... but he wants the Gold Line (downtown via Second Narrows), not Norgate or Park Royal; all three North Shore mayors like Purple better. So at best it's Richmond vs. every other mayor.

To be fair, I believe in general the North Shore municipal governments don't really care where it goes, as long as it goes somewhere.

Mike Little was on the campaign trail with Sim last year promoting the gold alignment too.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by chowhou

To be fair, I believe in general the North Shore municipal governments don't really care where it goes, as long as it goes somewhere.

Mike Little was on the campaign trail with Sim last year promoting the gold alignment too.

Exactly this.