Transit Fantasies

[nname]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

THE CANADA LINE cannot go under the harbour, as C.M. said. It's too shallow, it seems, and it would have to make a sharp L - turn to go sideways to gain depth.

Just rebuild the tail tracks north of Waterfront station, and the whole crossing should be doable within 6% grade using cut and cover and immersed tube. I don't know what's the maximum grade those Rotem trains can handle, but the industry standard seems to be around 7-8% with some companies offer up to 14%. So the worse case would be just getting some new trains that can handle steeper grade.

Distance between the edge of platform and Expo line track is ~80m, so with a rebuilt tail tracks, the line can drop 5m before reaching Expo Line at 6% grade. If this is problematic, I'm sure the train can handle a drop of ~8% at a short distance.. (What's the grade for the tunnel portal near Marine Drive? It seems more than 6% to me)

Distance between the edge of platform and the edge of water is ~180m, so the line would be already 11m underground with 6% grade.

The length of the harbour is 3400m and the maximum depth is 75m. With immersed tube, you don't need to dig deep into the soil. You either place the tube on the ocean floor and cover it with soil and rocks, or cut a small trench and place the tube inside the trench. So the tunnel only need to go down at most 80m at its deepest. Assume the tunnel enters the water at 10m below ground on Vancouver end and 5m on North Van end, only 4.3% average grade is required for the crossing.

The main problem with that proposal is that the feasibility of the harbour crossing, but it is how the line run up Lonsdale Ave. Assuming the line come aground 5m below surface, and run at 6% grade between each station:

Scenario 1:
Station 1 at Lonsdale and Eplanade: -10m
Station 2 at Lonsdale and 13th: -40m (Compare this to 25m for Granville)
Station 3 at Lonsdale and 23rd: +0m

Scenario 2:
Station 1 at Lonsdale and Eplanade: -10m
Station 2 at Lonsdale and Keith: -40m
Station 3 at Lonsdale and 20th: -20m
Station 4 at Lonsdale and 29th: -25m

The first scenario can barely made it up the hill with one very deep station (probably the access is going to be elevator-only). The second scenario just not feasible.

So this is my funny-looking proposal for the North Van line:



(Brown = cut and cover tunnel, Blue = elevated, Red = bored tunnel)

It would be a longer, 9.9km route from Lynn Valley, with 3 elevated and 3 underground stations:

Station 1 at Lonsdale Quay: -5m
Station 2 at Forbes and 3rd (E/W line): +5m (4% grade)
Station 3 at North Van City Hall: -10m (6% grade)
Station 4 at Lonsdale and 20th: -5m (5% grade)
Station 5 at Lynn Valley and TCH: +5m (3% grade)
Station 6 at Lynn Valley and 29th: +5m (pretty much flat)

This way it would avoid those very deep station when going up Lonsdale, although the screeching noise would probably going to be quite annoying...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

As much as Vancouver is dominant (and yes I live in the city), I find it a little disturbing that the eastern cities don't get improved rapid transit service. Surely the demand for such services may not exist at this point and will take time to build; however to neglect them rather completely from the picture as your diagram seems to suggest will only cause more infighting in the regional council as each city tries to get the most of their share of transit funding and improvements.

And please... why is it that the old, dead horse that is the tunnel under the Burrard Inlet always gets poked to no end? (shrug)

I agree that the cities in eastern GVRD seem to get short shrift, but I think it's largely a question of density. When some regions densify, there will be more demand, more potential ridership, and things will happen.

As for going under Burrard Inlet; I think that it's so obvious and so tempting that the subject has sort of an impelling quality, causing people to discuss it, even if it is a non-sequitur.

[jlousa]

I believe your numbers would imply the 75M depth being dead center in the inlet and only in the centre, unfortunately that is not the case.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I believe your numbers would imply the 75M depth being dead center in the inlet and only in the centre, unfortunately that is not the case.

From: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science...indian-eng.htm

"Sill Depth: shallow (15m to 25 m) and 15 km long sill region through Burrard Inlet/Vancouver Harbour"

So yeah, Jagged fjord is jagged! An immersed tube can be put on a gently curved river bed, but I can't see it working here.


The English Channel is around the same depth:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Channel_Tunnel

[Canadian Mind]

Didn't realise that Indian arm was so deep. What I am wondering is, why is no one thinking about the costs of such a project? Would it not be more cost-effective to build expand transit south of the Fraser first?

[wrenegade]

Of course it would. But this is the transit fantasy thread so......

Regarding a north shore skytrain extension, I think it would be much more likely to extend the Expo line east and then loop around under Burrard inlet and hook up with the west/east CN ROW on the port lands and continue the skytrain west along marine dr. Climbing Lonsdale would be ridiculously expensive and not worth it in my opinion (and this comes from someone who lives up the hill on Lonsdale).

[Zassk]

If you are going to loop the line east around the inlet, then why not build it on top of 2nd Narrows bridge instead of underneath the inlet? 2nd Narrows is the next crossing due for renovation after Port Mann as far as I understand. It would seem logical to explore adding a high elevation rail crossing for SkyTrain to the bridge at the same time that it is being widened/rehabilitated.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

From: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science...indian-eng.htm

"Sill Depth: shallow (15m to 25 m) and 15 km long sill region through Burrard Inlet/Vancouver Harbour"

So yeah, Jagged fjord is jagged! An immersed tube can be put on a gently curved river bed, but I can't see it working here.

That is a 2 dimensional profile of the deepest part of Burrard Inlet, so it's a little deceiving. If you added the north-south dimension, the lines would be much softer and you could probably find a route for a submerged tunnel. (thanks for the graph by the way)

I believe your numbers would imply the 75M depth being dead center in the inlet and only in the centre, unfortunately that is not the case.

It's close to centre with a slightly steeper grade on the north side. If it's 4.3% average grade (using nname's math) then there is a bit of grade to play with.

[nname]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

So yeah, Jagged fjord is jagged! An immersed tube can be put on a gently curved river bed, but I can't see it working here.

That's a east-west cross section, irrelevant to a north-south crossing.

The best depth map I can found is:


Source: Canadian Marine Multibeam Bathymetric Data WMS, mapped with Quantum GIS

Well, I can't really find a legend for this map and I can't find a Vancouver area map for the base layer either, so I've labelled the map to the best of my ability... Based on the E/W profile, we know that the deepest (dark blue) part of my map is about 70m. So base on this, we can probably assume the dark blue area are >50m, light blue are 25-50m, and the yellow area are 0-25m.

The area is generally very smooth. The only problem I found is a sharp drop on the Vancouver side (from 25 to 50m), and a rise on North Van end (from 25m to land). The first can be easily solved by digging into the soil in the shallow seabed, and the second, just build a deeper Lonsdale Quay station.

[SFUVancouver]

Nname, you win 'best map ever' for that, which perfectly illustrates the challenge that would face a rapid transit tunnel expansion north to Lonsdale Quay. As much as I love the idea of SkyTrain continuing north a hydofoil or some other sort of proven high speed-low wake vessel is really more likely and would lend itself to additional sailings to Ambleside and other potential termini, not to mention being on the water is always more fun than being in a tunnel.

[Toddlertoddy]

A map of Vancouver's commuter train which stretches north to Lilliooet and Kamloops. I experimented with a lot of geographical distortion. This includes new rail and existing rail.

[Millennium2002]

Given that this is the fantasy thread, the concept looks nice.

Having said that, from a realistic perspective, there's no chance of any line running past Whistler or Hope... the distances beyond that are too far to be economically covered in the one to two hour time frame of a maximum commute, and most of the "distant suburbs" of Vancouver like Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Mission, and others behave more like insular communities that do not depend on Vancouver whatsoever for jobs.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I was going to say that. You do realize how far away those places are right? Almost every one of those cities near the end of those routes are barely a town. The have economies largely depending on local resources, farming and industry, not office work in a distant town 5 hours away.

To top it off your two Kamloops lines would both have to be 1 way since the Fraser Canyon section CN/CP share track. One side goes south, the other goes north, so they are effectively one double tracked line with a river serving as the median.

These would work as general passenger rail lines, although you would want the Northern line to end somewhere like PG as an anchor destination. The real question is largely would ridership support this? Most of these places have very underutilized highways connecting them to the lower-mainland. BC's traffic problems only really start at Horseshoe Bay in the north, at (usually) Chilliwack in the west. Once you get past these points it's usually clear sailing straight across the province.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I was going to say that. You do realize how far away those places are right? Almost every one of those cities near the end of those routes are barely a town. The have economies largely depending on local resources, farming and industry, not office work in a distant town 5 hours away.

To top it off your two Kamloops lines would both have to be 1 way since the Fraser Canyon section CN/CP share track. One side goes south, the other goes north, so they are effectively one double tracked line with a river serving as the median.

These would work as general passenger rail lines, although you would want the Northern line to end somewhere like PG as an anchor destination. The real question is largely would ridership support this? Most of these places have very underutilized highways connecting them to the lower-mainland. BC's traffic problems only really start at Horseshoe Bay in the north, at (usually) Chilliwack in the west. Once you get past these points it's usually clear sailing straight across the province.

I've had a few traffic issues going through Kamloops...

[logan5]

Maybe in the distant future (60 - 70 years) such a system would be feasible, and a necessity. After Chilliwack, there's no more room for the lower mainland to grow. And I'm sure train technology and tunneling technology will improve in the future. I would expect that 60 or 70 years from now the capability will be there to get from Kamloops to Waterfront Station in Vancouver in 45 minutes, which would make Kamloops a suburb of Vancouver. Maybe vacuum tube trains will be a reality by then.

[nname]

Walhachin and Lytton have a combined population of 335, and they get 4 stations in total... That's 84 people per station

[trofirhen]

A plan like this is not without a lot of validity. Problem is, it's really designed for an urban megalopolis in the Lower Mainland of upwards of 10 m people at least, plus a Kamloops of nearly a million.

As for the many small stations in self-contained cummunities as now, I'd leave a lot of those out until time when a demand should appear.

[wrenegade]

There is no point in having commuter rail past Garibaldi Highlands in my opinion going that direction, but I also want to point out that a Horseshoe Bay station would be all but impossible. The rail line in the area is elevated at least 200-300 feet above the Horseshoe Bay village and is also buried in a tunnel at that point.

Beyond the Squamish area (to the North) and Chilliwack (to the East) I think the population would be better served by highway upgrades as opposed to rail upgrades.

[LeftCoaster]

Sorry it took me so long to respond to my own post... took an extended long weekend. I needed it!

Originally Posted by Canadian Mind

Looks good, but I have a couple changes in mind. Sorry if I pick it apart too much. I don't see the Canada Line going under Burrard Inlet, and I don't know how much ridership to Burnaby your Bay Line would develop from the North Shore.

I think modifications to be made would be an LRT line following generally the same route as your Bay Line until you get to the 2nd Narrows crossing, which would act as a feeder for a WCE line that has 2-3 stops along the north shore, then crosses by the 2nd Narrows, and speeds west to downtown.

From there, instead of continuing east to SFU (maybe have that as a "spur" of hastings line, or an extended leg of Expo), have the Hastings Line turn south and follow the same path as the Bay Line where they cross.

From there, have the Hastings Line turn up where you have the Arbutus LRT, and at kits point have it pass over/under False Creek/English Bay to where the western terminus of your current Hastings Line is to form a loop.

As for the Arbutus LRT, have that turn east where I suggested the Hastings Line turn north on Arbutus, connecting it with the streetcar, or just have the streetcar head east on W41 to meet up with the Hastings Skytrain/Arbutus LRT transfer station.

Don't worry about picking it apart, that's what I wanted people to do.

First off re the Burrard Inlet tunnel, I just want to stress that this is the transit FANTASY thread, clearly I'm assuming a pretty ridiculous budget here. No sense in commenting on the price of one of the lines, I was looking more for comments on functionality.

Given this the bay line is more for getting NS residents to the rest of the metro, not downtown, so replacing it with commuter rail to downtown would be redundant. As well in this scenario I envision Metrotown as a very strong second node, as I believe it will develop into in reality, so that was my reasoning behind the bay line. It would act two fold, one as 2/3 of a circle line and two, linking the new second core of Metrotown to a large part of the metro.

And as for the Arbutus line, I did have that thought, and actually had a map with that in it, but I really liked the Hastings line terminating in the west end. I just like the idea of getting off the subway at english bay beach That is certainly a change I wouldn't be against though.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Regarding first the BAY LINE, it may not seem to make sense at first, but in fact (IMHO) would serve "segments" of the city - people going crosstown East-West, riders going to South Burnaby-North Burnaby, people going over the bridge to North Van, although the extension as far as Park Royal in West Van may be a bit overambitious.

THE CANADA LINE cannot go under the harbour, as C.M. said. It's too shallow, it seems, and it would have to make a sharp L - turn to go sideways to gain depth.

However .... the EXPO line at Waterfront already points east, and could continue eastward and gain the necessary depth (geology permitting)

Looking at the map, it also seem that further East it is slightly narrower than where you have placed the undersea CANADA LINE. (In either case, going up Lonsdale to 15th is pretty ambitious. That's a steep slope calling for super - deep stations.)

Also, the EXPO line could in fact split, one branch going under to North Van, the other up along Hastings.

The KNIGHT LINE is a great idea in theory, I think, but there isn't the density along Knight to support a line at present, and will probably not for several decades, until it gets rezoned with density nodes along it to support and justify ridership. It's most duplexes and single houses now, unless it has changed over the past 6 years.

You are right in most of your analysis, but again this is something I envisioned for a 50-70 year buildout, so in this scenario the north shore and Knight corridor would certainly have the density to support grade separated transit.

Also the bay line goes well past Park Royal, It actually ends in Dundarave. I know the residents of WV would die before letting the skytrain that deep into their beloved enclave but I put it there anyway!

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

As much as Vancouver is dominant (and yes I live in the city), I find it a little disturbing that the eastern cities don't get improved rapid transit service. Surely the demand for such services may not exist at this point and will take time to build; however to neglect them rather completely from the picture as your diagram seems to suggest will only cause more infighting in the regional council as each city tries to get the most of their share of transit funding and improvements.

Well like I said in my post, I dont know the eastern suburbs that well, so please, gimme a hand. What would you change? I added two lines and extended one in Surrey and I have another line going into coquitlam as well. Are they misaligned or do you think the corridors with density would not be served well?

[cornholio]

I remember there were some sort of concept plans thrown out in the past regarding extending a rapid transit line to the North Shore and paying for it by using the fill from tunnel boring to create a new island/land reclamation near downtown and developing it.

The depth is not great near downtown and even now after coal harbor has been developed there is still potential east of Canada place (assuming the port gets on board) to reclaim a good chunk of land worth possibly billion, right in the heart of downtown and the main transportation hub I should add. View cones would be minimal and all residential areas south of it are cut of from the Burrard inlet and views would be minimally impacted. Obviously though the activists would complain about something but what can you do.

I think if any current line would be extended to the north shore it would have to be the expo line being extended since skytrain can handle steeper grades and is better aligned to be extended. But I would think some other technology would be needed to bridge the gap with a transfer at both ends, maybe a floating/anchored tunnel with vehicles that can handle the sway? Maybe a underwater gondola/tether system along which some vehicle can propel?