HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #621  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2011, 4:27 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
I'd be really surprised if they ever build any sort of rail-based rapid transit to the North Shore. There just isn't a population need and the seabus works plenty fine. Not to mention population growth isn't major on the North Shore compared to other areas of Metro Vancouver that are much more in need of rail-based rapid transit solutions. I'd much sooner see about 15 new lines completed before anything to North Shore is done.

I mean let's face it, from 2001 to 2006 the combined North Shore grew by 1.1%. Compare that to 5.9% in Vancouver alone or 4.6% in Burnaby and 13.6% in Surrey. Heck even UBC grew by 34.5% and population wise grew by more people that the North Shore combined in 5 years.

We'll see what happens with the 2011 census but I just don't think the North Shore justifies a massive expense to build any major transit across the inlet there. Better bus service across the Lions Gate which is being done and Sea Bus are much smarter. Not to mention a lot of the recent growth in West Vancouver is being done in the $million mansion realm and anyone that can afford a $million mansion wouldn't step foot anywhere near a bus or transit system. So you're really dealing with like a crowth of 1000-2000 people every 5 years. Hardly justification for a $billion+ transit expansion. Not when places like Surrey grow by that in a few weeks.

I do know this is the Transit _Fantasy_ forum though.

Just saying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #622  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2011, 5:03 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,593
I do agree with you jhausner that the current growth does not justify what would be quite an expense. However, never say never. The City of North Van recently released their 100 Year Sustainability Vision and I was a little surprised to see how much density they have planned. It's not towers everywhere, more than I expected from traditionally conservative North Van (I guess it helped that UBC was involved and CNV council wasn't really).

It is nice to dream though. Personally I think that improved transit, perhaps rail or streetcar based, is more important getting people across the North Shore, Park Royal to Lonsdale Quay/Central Lonsdale/Lynn Valley, than it is getting people to and from downtown.

One thing that does need to be done with regards to North Shore-Downtown transportation is a total re-imagining and re-building of the Ironworkers Birdge/Highway 1/Main Street/Dollarton Highway/Mt. Seymour Parkway interchange.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #623  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2011, 5:19 PM
GMasterAres GMasterAres is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 3,055
You never know. I have always had issues with 10 and 20 year plans let alone a 100 year plan. When I look at Surrey, Vancouver, and Burnaby's 10 year plans from back in the 90s, almost none of them have resulted in the realities of today.

100 years is a long time lol. I guess I should qualify my using the word "ever" in the sense that I mean, I would be surprised if in my life time they build rail-based transit to the North Shore. I can't say never though you're right. For all I know we'll have a massive 10.0 Earthquake and large swaths of Metro Vancouver will be under water requiring a lot of people to move to the North Shore mountains which likely will still be standing tall.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #624  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2011, 4:48 AM
logan5's Avatar
logan5 logan5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Mt.Pleasant
Posts: 6,848


As it stands now, people who live along the busy Main St., Fraser St, and Commercial drive neighborhoods have to transfer at a Skytrain station in order to get Downtown. People who live in the Metro Core or close to it should be able to get a one seat ride into Downtown, so I made some new express bus/tram routes that should be in service around the year two thousand and never.

In my plan, the Dunsmuir Viaduct becomes transit only, leading to a bus/tram tunnel under Dunsmuir St., with good underground connections. The new routes are the same as we have now, except for the obvious changes. The 3 routes would also take pressure off the Skytrain system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #625  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2011, 5:25 AM
Toddlertoddy Toddlertoddy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 18
Google Maps version of my Skytrain map (with a few edits):
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msa=0&...12,0.8638&z=11
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #626  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2011, 2:24 PM
LeftCoaster's Avatar
LeftCoaster LeftCoaster is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toroncouver
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toddlertoddy View Post
Google Maps version of my Skytrain map (with a few edits):
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msa=0&...12,0.8638&z=11
I hope you don't mind, but here are my 2 cents.

1. There is absolutely no reason to extend transit in WV past Dundurave, the density disappears after Dundurave and the topography is a nightmare to say the least. Not to mention its WV... not only would they go ballistic if you tried to put a "welfare skytrain system" into their precious enclave, they just wouldn't take it. If you are concerned with the ferry terminal an express bus timed with the ferry (or even on it as a bonus) to a station at PR would do the trick.

2. Your west end line links nothing to nothing. If West enders are trying to get downtown it would likely be faster to walk than take a train to yaletown station and transfer downtown... not to mention the cost. Or is that a tram? I cant tell.

3. Your Arbutus line is fine until it hits Kits where it then wanders around aimlessly. It would be faster for people trying to get downtown to get off at burrard and transfer to a bus rather than sit on that thing as it snaked around false creek. Send it over the burrard bridge and let the people going E/W take the streetcar along that path.

4. Your south spur of the Hastings line should link up with Metrotown. Also I would put it through Bretwood city centre not the fringe, but that's not a big deal.

5. Your Maillard Guilford line is another line from nowhere to nowhere. It would be used as a spur line and therefore there is no reason to send it over the bridge, I can probably count on one hand the amount of people who would go from maillardville to guilford in a day.

I hope I wasn't too critical. I know when I post these things though I want peoples feedback, so hopefully it was appreciated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #627  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2011, 5:16 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,593
As someone who grew up in West Van (and used the Blue Bus extensively in my youth) I would argue that skytrain (or any type of rapid transit like that) would be a waste west of 15th street in Ambleside.

Having the Hastings Line split and follow the highway north and south is a bit of a puzzle to me as well. I would think it would make more sense to continue the line east on Hastings to Willingdon before turning south and heading to Brentwood, past BCIT and connecting with Metrotown. Having a skytrain stop at the Kootenay St Bus Loop for transfer across the 2nd narrows to Phibbs exchange (or a stop at Mountain Hwy & Main St) makes more sense than continuing the skytrain across the 2nd narrows.

It would make more sense (and be a lot cheaper) to use the existing rail spur south of Marine Drive/Marine Way from Oak Street to Byrne Road rather than build along busy Marine Drive. Going along the current rail alignment would also tie in better with the East Fraserlands project (River District).

A 41st/SW Marine line should take a right at Wesbrook Mall to meet up with the UBC/Millenium Line at University Blvd. Going along the water and around the back doesn't serve much purpose. Students/commuters want to get to the middle of campus, not the residences. Also, skipping out on the new neighbourhood at Wesbrook Place would be a mistake.
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #628  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2011, 7:41 PM
Toddlertoddy Toddlertoddy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 18
Changed a few things:
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msa=0&...88,0.4319&z=12

Thanks for the tips.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #629  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2011, 10:36 PM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Here's an update on that Vancouver's loop concept I posted some time ago, that a couple of you particularly liked:

Taking advice from some users, I've taken the liberty of exploring the option of two different routes through downtown; one goes Chinatown-Stadium-Yaletown. There is no direct connection to Waterfront, however that could be remedied by 1. extending the Expo Line to Main St, or 2. connections to the N. Shore at Kootenay Loop to Phibbs Exchange. The other route goes through Waterfront and down Burrard St on a more centralized route through downtown.

Quite frankly I think that if/after this loop Skytrain line is built, that there will be no more need for any new rapid transit construction in Vancouver, at least for awhile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #630  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2011, 2:28 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,921
Expansion of stations maybe?
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #631  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2011, 6:27 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Mind View Post
Expansion of stations maybe?
I meant new rapid transit lines (i.e. on different routes). Expansion of stations would probably definitely be necessary to accomodate future growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #632  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2011, 3:55 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
Woah... I know that SkyTrain can turn tight corners, but I think your idea abuses that design advantage to the extreme such that the network will be extremely slow and inefficient... especially when the red line enters Downtown from the west. Is it not more practical to straighten it out and have a feeder bus run around there instead?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #633  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2011, 5:07 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Are you talking about the cuves in Kitsilano? I had the route entering downtown the west roughly follow the path of an old rail line.... If it be deemed better that the route follow a straight route through Kits, so be it. It would be much easier and less costly to construct along existing available ROW however, than TBM or claim property. The turns don't seem that sharp either. If you're talking about the curve(s) just across false creek... it is likely that at this point that the line would definitely have to be constructed by TBM, in which case the curve can be smoothened out. This is a map and rough idea/conceptual routing, and is far from something set in stone. There is a lot of work to be done with this concept. I'm already splitting between two potential routes through downtown. I'm also going to be playing with the station locations, i.e. deciding how to space them out on Hastings.

Even if the Skytrain were to slow down somewhat during those points, the speed during straight sections would more than make up for it. From the Hastings corridor to the Arbutus corridor would be a significantly faster ride than taking the existing route 16. Not that Hastings-Arbutus commutes would be the only purpose of this line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #634  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2011, 6:44 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Kelowna BC & Edmonton AB
Posts: 4,259
Any reason you didn't follow the ROW around W 33rd Ave?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #635  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2011, 7:51 PM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
Yes that part. The winding route only serves to help people living in that area and will drive construction costs up due to the longer route that has to be constructed. I'm also curious as to the inconsistency between the ROW being followed at False Creek but not at 33rd Avenue.

Personally, I'd move the western part of the loop more towards Macdonald and replace the 2 supplemental service to the 22 with it, and use the existing surface Arbutus ROW for another separate heritage streetcar or LRT system from Downtown and Granville Island towards Marpole and Fraserlands to the east.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #636  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2011, 10:33 PM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Yes that part. The winding route only serves to help people living in that area and will drive construction costs up due to the longer route that has to be constructed.
At 2.2km vs 1.6km the distance difference is very minimal. The line can be constructed with little to no interfering development in a way. A station placed in the vicinity can also serve the mini commercial/business district around 4th & Burrard, as well as Granville Island. You make a good point about moving the Arbutus ROW in favour of a heritage streetcar however.... problem is would moving the line to Macdonald, resulting in more challenging ROW and taking away from some key areas such as Arbutus Village, really worth it? If environmental/surrounding impact is what you're worried about with construction of Skytrain along the Arbutus ROW, there is the option to place it underground.

If you were talking about why I'm placing the route where it is around the Burrard Bridge vs. a straight shot between Broadway/Arbutus and Yaletown, it has to do with other destinations (non-residential) along the route - i.e. Vanier Park, nearby museums, and Sunset Beach.

---

UPDATE:

Oakridge is now in the proper location, stations modified/named.... note the use of the word "potential" outside the loop line concept.
A third option of completing the loop aside from Arbutus or Macdonald would be to route the line along Granville, something I'm studying with low priority at the moment...

Last edited by xd_1771; Aug 18, 2011 at 11:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #637  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2011, 12:40 AM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
Ignore that inconsistency. Might work under the assumption of underground rail line, though an elevated line would more than likely better be suited to follow that ROW.
An elevated line? I know the comment was made really far back in time but "la creme de la creme" is still prevalent and they certainly won't like a bulky concrete structure snaking its way through Kerrisdale. Yes, it's possible to force things on the residents, but the city could get a really nasty legal and political mess in the form of lawsuits, complaints, and lost votes like what happened at Cambie Village before, during, and after any shovel gets put into the ground. We may even see a dramatic shift to the transit-stalling right if they are able to rally enough support around their message, however skewed it might appear to us centre or left leaning transit supporters.

The other option of course would be to go underground, and that will easily cause the price to skyrocket for something that shouldn't really cost that much for the demand that it currently handles. I can easily see other municipalities brandishing arms at Vancouver in an attempt to force it to do something cheaper or otherwise fund more transit in general in the rest of the region.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
At 2.2km vs 1.6km the distance difference is very minimal. The line can be constructed with little to no interfering development in a way. A station placed in the vicinity can also serve the mini commercial/business district around 4th & Burrard, as well as Granville Island. You make a good point about moving the Arbutus ROW in favour of a heritage streetcar however.... problem is would moving the line to Macdonald, resulting in more challenging ROW and taking away from some key areas such as Arbutus Village, really worth it? If environmental or surrounding impact is what you're worried about with construction of Skytrain along the Arbutus ROW, there is the option to place it underground.
For elevated structures in particular, again the community doesn't seem to like that idea in the past and unless there have been massive changes to the demographics in the area, it'll probably stay that way for a long long time. Underground certainly works but I've mentioned that it costs more than what the line is worth.

Having said all of that, which may give the false first impression of the area just hating rapid transit in general for no good reason, I do feel that the community may be more receptive to some sort of surface transit like what is constantly proposed to the death on Broadway (except in that case it's more like self-inflicted suicide for that corridor due to the lack of a wider ROW and heavy traffic demand). In addition, surface transit would go really well with bringing back some partial memories of the history of the old interurban, which again I think would be really receptive to affluent Kerrisdale and even Fraserlands to the east, if the line continues to that location. Besides, Arbutus Village may be the next big project in the west-side of Vancouver, but in relative terms it may only have the same amount of residents or less, if not just around half, compared to Olympic Village.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post
If you were talking about why I'm placing the route where it is around the Burrard Bridge vs. a straight shot between Broadway/Arbutus and Yaletown, it has to do with other destinations (non-residential) along the route - i.e. Vanier Park, nearby museums, and Sunset Beach.
I'd disagree still. Let's consider for example Langara College. It's not even close to Cambie and they still put the stop there. No offense, but following your logic, should a bored route have been diverted over closer to the college? Much more convenient for students for sure, even though it costs a ton to do. =S

A similar story also occurs close to Broadway-City Hall... the hospital is rather far away from that location, so should the line have to swing by with another station to serve that area? It's very convenient for patients, visitors, and hospital employees.

Perhaps it might not cost as much to build such a winding route to service all the relatively important destinations at Kitsilano when the line approaches Downtown from the west unlike the other hypothetical scenarios that I posted, but any sort of additional costs will start to add up and make the project less economically viable for Translink and palatable to the rest of the region, as they'll certainly have to pay for some of the cost.

And finally, is there a particularly strong reason to having to complete the circle, other than the fact that it looks nice, if we have both Arbutus and Circle lines in existence? I don't think there's a strict rule or even convention out there that says that if the circle is not complete it must not be considered as such in the naming. If you look back at my previous concept I break the circle between Broadway and Macdonald and Kerrisdale due to lack of density, support, and demand in the area in between. Even Singapore doesn't complete their Circle Line for roughly the same reason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #638  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2011, 9:13 AM
xd_1771's Avatar
xd_1771 xd_1771 is offline
(daka_x)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,689
The thing about Kitsilano is that this is no 2 block (hospital) or 3-4 block (Langara) difference. To route the line elsewhere would be neglecting this community - a community in which there are several major and popular destinations for people from elsewhere. To take the line and have it totally skip Kitsilano is in my opinion a step in the wrong direction - it is like taking a huge chunk of ridership potential (not just from Kitsilano residents who may ride the line, but others who may ride to Kitsilano and other such areas)

Although servicing through commutes through completing the circle would be nice, omitting the southwest corner of the loop I could definitely understand (perhaps the 49th Avenue portion could stop at Kerrisdale , until/unless if it is absolutely necessary to extend the line to complete the circle), but the lack of service to Kitsilano and area (which, mind you, wouldn't just be for the residents there) when there is little compromise to line length & cost, and higher potential benefit and more destinations served, not so much.

To compare (let us assume that all of this will be constructed by bored tunnel):
Exhibit A: 6th west of Burrard to Pacific and Drake via modified routing: Burrard -> under False Creek -> Pacific Blvd: 2.6KM

Exhibit B: 6th west of Burrard to Pacific and Drake - most direct route: 1.85KM


For a relatively minimal difference in line length, you are going out of the way to better serve these potential destinations: Vanier Park/Point Grey, Hadden Park, Jericho Beach, the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, Sunset Beach, and the southern end of the Granville St corridor. In addition, if the circle were to never be completed and the line to never continue past Broadway and Arbutus, this pretty much renders the need for faster through commute somewhat less significant.

I don't see why it doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #639  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2011, 4:28 PM
Millennium2002 Millennium2002 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,742
I frankly don't think that area is of high importance such that a whole rapid transit line needs to be diverted there... like the only few times I've been to that area is to go see Bard on the Beach (which is popular but seasonal) and the Planetarium (which is sort of boring for anyone other than kids nowadays).

But anyway... (takes a break)

Last edited by Millennium2002; Aug 19, 2011 at 4:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #640  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2011, 12:57 AM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is offline
........
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,305
Wats the point of the detour being tunelled if you can take the line over the burrard bridge?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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