Transit Fantasies

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Is there a way that Lonsdale could become a '3rd downtown', cutting down dependency on the CBD (and thus transportation needs?)

It seems only logical to try to cut down the # of trans-inlet trips as much as possible(and transportation in general, considering the geography and NIMBYism), though Lonsdale is already partially built up with condos.

It would probably also suck out a lot of office-building energy out of the other downtowns.

More or less what the City of North Van's going for right now (though the District doesn't seem to be on board). The only bottleneck is their lack of transportation infrastructure.

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBH, the vast majority of trips from the North Shore end in the CBD.

The Lonsdale Line route take 4.25min from Waterfront to Commerical-Hastings, then 2.3 min across the inlet, plus transfers to the Hastings Line (say, 1 min avg wait). However, that's still way better than the Seabus time of 10-12 minutes crossing+ up to 15 min wait times.

Jollyburger seems to be under the impression that transit riders are currently out of the way of road users at Waterfront, but with a SkyTrain they'd be clogging up Burrard-Georgia-Granville like they do at Broadway-Cambie. Since most of those are transferring to the 99, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The two Burrard Inlet routes? Both would be at 2018 Canada Line levels of frequency; having at least one at Expo/Millennium level (or at least as an option in the future) would go a long way toward future-proofing North Shore transit.

In a 6 train timing cycle, 6 trains to one destination would have the capability of the Expo Line's max build-out capacity of 25,000. For a 3 train timing cycle with half the frequency of the 6 train cycle that halves the max capacity to 12,500 (which is just over double the current 6,000 capacity the Canada Line currently runs). The Seabus runs at a capacity of 1,200 pphpd right now (2 boats each with 300 person capacity @ 15 min frequencies). I think max capacity is 1,800 with 3 boats at 10min frequencies.

My feeling was that 12,500 (being 10x higher than current Seabus) would be enough capacity? What capacity are you under the impression would be enough?

Also, I don't think it would be feasible using only the 3rd CB platform to turn back trains to North Van with a headway shorter than 150 seconds, so, we would have to construct a fourth platform.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

More or less what the City of North Van's going for right now (though the District doesn't seem to be on board). The only bottleneck is their lack of transportation infrastructure.

TBH, the level of mixed-use and commercial zoning seems pretty underwhelming compared to Surrey City Centre's plans. :/

http://gisapp.cnv.org/PDFMaps/Schedu...0Use_11x17.pdf

Though, yeah, transportation infrastructure is likely a big bottleneck to this plan.

the District doesn't seem to be on board)

? Source ?

May I have a source for the 3rd downtown thing being an actual policy as well?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by waves

In a 6 train timing cycle, 6 trains to one destination would have the capability of the Expo Line's max build-out capacity of 25,000. For a 3 train timing cycle with half the frequency of the 6 train cycle that halves the max capacity to 12,500 (which is just over double the current 6,000 capacity the Canada Line currently runs). The Seabus runs at a capacity of 1,200 pphpd right now (2 boats each with 300 person capacity @ 15 min frequencies). I think max capacity is 1,800 with 3 boats at 10min frequencies.

My feeling was that 12,500 (being 10x higher than current Seabus) would be enough capacity? What capacity are you under the impression would be enough?

Also, I don't think it would be feasible using only the 3rd CB platform to turn back trains to North Van with a headway shorter than 150 seconds, so, we would have to construct a fourth platform.

I'm just saying that induced demand induces pretty fast. 15,000 is the Canada's peak, and half the city's going "no, that's not enough." Ditto the North Shore: we're not just talking about people on the SeaBus, we're talking drivers and bus passengers on both bridges, and possibly people who wouldn't ordinarily venture across the Inlet, but might now, because "hey, now there's a SkyTrain."

The recent municipal study pegs North Van residents commuting south at around 40.5k, and vice versa at 21.3k; assuming a round trip, that's 123k trips. You probably know more than most of us about how many of those trips would be switched to what kind of SkyTrain route, but AFAIK it's better to overbuild.
Two separate routes also creates less points of failure for the signalling system, a more comprehensible map, and more ridership from having twice the frequency. It's an elegant solution, what you came up with, but I think the KIS principle overrules it.

You're right about Commercial. TransLink installed the third platform to reduce crowding on the Expo, not exacerbate it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBH, the level of mixed-use and commercial zoning seems pretty underwhelming compared to Surrey City Centre's plans. :/

http://gisapp.cnv.org/PDFMaps/Schedu...0Use_11x17.pdf

Though, yeah, transportation infrastructure is likely a big bottleneck to this plan.


? Source ?

May I have a source for the 3rd downtown thing being an actual policy as well?

Not by their policies, by their actions. The City has been pretty good about keeping themselves compact and dense and close to transit (I predict another rezoning plan when the Lonsdale SkyTrain is finally confirmed).

OTOH, the District recently approved a giant bedroom community halfway to Deep Cove, and is building condos beside the highway on the opposite end from Park & Tilford or Phibbs; all the houses in-between remain untouched. That is not good TOD.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not by their policies, by their actions. The City has been pretty good about keeping themselves compact and dense and close to transit (I predict another rezoning plan when the Lonsdale SkyTrain is finally confirmed).

OTOH, the District recently approved a giant bedroom community halfway to Deep Cove, and is building condos beside the highway on the opposite end from Park & Tilford or Phibbs; all the houses in-between remain untouched. That is not good TOD.

Ah. Thanks.

TBF, the area wasn't going to get good transit in the foreseeable future anyways, and industrial in the East N. Shore isn't possible due to rough terrain.

It's 6-story density, so at least they're trying to conserve land.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by waves

In a 6 train timing cycle, 6 trains to one destination would have the capability of the Expo Line's max build-out capacity of 25,000. For a 3 train timing cycle with half the frequency of the 6 train cycle that halves the max capacity to 12,500 (which is just over double the current 6,000 capacity the Canada Line currently runs). The Seabus runs at a capacity of 1,200 pphpd right now (2 boats each with 300 person capacity @ 15 min frequencies). I think max capacity is 1,800 with 3 boats at 10min frequencies.

My feeling was that 12,500 (being 10x higher than current Seabus) would be enough capacity? What capacity are you under the impression would be enough?

Also, I don't think it would be feasible using only the 3rd CB platform to turn back trains to North Van with a headway shorter than 150 seconds, so, we would have to construct a fourth platform.

Isn't the capacity 385? Buzzer blog mentioned 399 as the capacity before the ships get reclassified with more restrictions from Transport Canada.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by fredinno

May I have a source for the 3rd downtown thing being an actual policy as well?

Zero chance City of North Vancouver will turn into a new downtown until real estate prices along Broadway and other parts surrounding the downtown core get so crazy they look north of the harbour.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not by their policies, by their actions. The City has been pretty good about keeping themselves compact and dense and close to transit (I predict another rezoning plan when the Lonsdale SkyTrain is finally confirmed).

OTOH, the District recently approved a giant bedroom community halfway to Deep Cove, and is building condos beside the highway on the opposite end from Park & Tilford or Phibbs; all the houses in-between remain untouched. That is not good TOD.

When was it approved?

https://www.nsnews.com/deep-cove-cri...ion-1.23424735

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Zero chance City of North Vancouver will turn into a new downtown until real estate prices along Broadway and other parts surrounding the downtown core get so crazy they look north of the harbour.

Surrey City Central is supposed to turn into the 2nd Downtown The entire thing is zoned as high-density mixed, and that's the reason the entire LRT debacle happened.

Honestly, having a good supply of AAA office stock outside of the (1st) downtown is a good thing. Right now, the expansion of downtown is blocked by the DTES/Chinatown/Japantown/Gastown on one side, the West End and the NIMBY Kits on another, the edge of the 15 min walking distance from Broadway on another, and the NIMBY Grandview-Woodlands and False Creek Flats on another. There's not an enormous amount of room to expand, and tight regulations make downtown office real estate even more expensive.


One serious problem right now are companies being founded in Vancouver, getting big, then just packing up and leaving for California. That happened with Lionsgate and EA, for example. There are other reasons for this, but expanding from Vancouver is generally difficult due to the high costs of RE.

There is a reason the suburbs host the vast majority of residential and industrial growth in Vancouver nowadays. In the future, we can hopefully add offices to the list too.

In any case, we should see how well Surrey is starting to do by the time we get Skytrain out to the North Shore. It seems to be starting to ramp up.

[waves]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Isn't the capacity 385? Buzzer blog mentioned 399 as the capacity before the ships get reclassified with more restrictions from Transport Canada.

Oops yes you are right. Assuming 400, that would update my numbers to 1,600 currently and 2,400 max. (I had pulled the 300 from vague memory rather than research).

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'm just saying that induced demand induces pretty fast. 15,000 is the Canada's peak, and half the city's going "no, that's not enough." Ditto the North Shore: we're not just talking about people on the SeaBus, we're talking drivers and bus passengers on both bridges, and possibly people who wouldn't ordinarily venture across the Inlet, but might now, because "hey, now there's a SkyTrain."

The recent municipal study pegs North Van residents commuting south at around 40.5k, and vice versa at 21.3k; assuming a round trip, that's 123k trips. You probably know more than most of us about how many of those trips would be switched to what kind of SkyTrain route, but AFAIK it's better to overbuild.

I decided to look at number somewhat more carefully and did some crude math with a lot of assumptions:

(A) INSTPP Population Increase by 2041 = 61,000 ppdpd
(B) Proportion Lonsdale TOD Assumption = 60%
(C) Mode Share of pLTOD Assumption = 60%
A*B*C = (D) New Population Ridership 2041 = 18,300 ppdpd

(E) Average Seabus weekday boardings = 18,740 ppd
E/2 = (F) Average Seabus weekday boardings per direction = 9,370 ppdpd
(G) Total Transit southbound from North Shore = 40,500 ppdpd
G-F = (H) Total non-Seabus Transit southbound from North Shore = 31,130 ppdpd
(I) Skytrain Diversion Rate Assumption = 40%
H*I = (J) New Stolen Ridership = 12,452 ppdpd

(K) North Shore Mode Shift from Car to Skytrain Rate Assumption = 15%
(L) North Shore Mode Share Car 2017 Average = 72%
(M) North Shore Mode Share Transit 2017 Average = 17%
G/M*L*K = (N) 2017 Shift from Car to Skytrain Volume = 25,700 ppdpd

D+F+J+N = (O) 2042 Skytrain Daily Average Ridership = 65,800 ppdpd
O/20 = (P) 2042 Skytrain Average Weekday Hourly Volume = 3,300 pphpd

(Q) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Volume = 1150 pphpd
(R) 2017 Seabus Capacity at Peak Hour = 1540 pphpd
(S) 2017 Seabus Average Weekday Hourly Volume (20hr/day) = 450 pphpd
Q/R = (T) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Load Factor = 75%
Q/S = (U) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Volume Factor = 256%

P*U = (V) 2042 Skytrain Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Volume = 8,500 pphpd
V/T = (W) 2042 Skytrain Capacity for 2017 similar crowding levels = 11,300 pphpd

This also doesn't account for what kind of increased development might happen because of the line thereby further increasing the ridership. Tack on 1,200 pphpd and you are at 100% capacity at peak hour. This is all been very liberal though to show a high estimate. (50% car to others mode share, all seabus diverted to skytrain, similar peak volume factors, ect.) All of the mode share shifts are also assumed as if the switch to skytrain happened now, and was gradual over the next 25 years. If the line is built in 2040, then you won't see that mode shift right away and you could probably get away with 12,500 pphpd capacity for 10 years while the mode share shifts, but you will need more than that for the long term of the line which means that the 4th platform at CB will likely be a necessity immediately so that service can double up to 25,000 pphpd.

Also, the line can run completely independent between CB and 23rd. If you can run a direct train every so often from 23rd to Langley and if something goes wrong can't you just revert to the the lines acting separately? It's not quite synonymous with the Sapperton Branch since no trains run only between Production Way and Columbia.

[jollyburger]

Major street plan from the 1940s.



https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/major-street-plan-2

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Major street plan from the 1940s.



https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/major-street-plan-2

The Oak St. Bridge and Burrard connectors would have been cool.

Originally Posted by waves

Oops yes you are right. Assuming 400, that would update my numbers to 1,600 currently and 2,400 max. (I had pulled the 300 from vague memory rather than research).



I decided to look at number somewhat more carefully and did some crude math with a lot of assumptions:

(A) INSTPP Population Increase by 2041 = 61,000 ppdpd
(B) Proportion Lonsdale TOD Assumption = 60%
(C) Mode Share of pLTOD Assumption = 60%
A*B*C = (D) New Population Ridership 2041 = 18,300 ppdpd

(E) Average Seabus weekday boardings = 18,740 ppd
E/2 = (F) Average Seabus weekday boardings per direction = 9,370 ppdpd
(G) Total Transit southbound from North Shore = 40,500 ppdpd
G-F = (H) Total non-Seabus Transit southbound from North Shore = 31,130 ppdpd
(I) Skytrain Diversion Rate Assumption = 40%
H*I = (J) New Stolen Ridership = 12,452 ppdpd

(K) North Shore Mode Shift from Car to Skytrain Rate Assumption = 15%
(L) North Shore Mode Share Car 2017 Average = 72%
(M) North Shore Mode Share Transit 2017 Average = 17%
G/M*L*K = (N) 2017 Shift from Car to Skytrain Volume = 25,700 ppdpd

D+F+J+N = (O) 2042 Skytrain Daily Average Ridership = 65,800 ppdpd
O/20 = (P) 2042 Skytrain Average Weekday Hourly Volume = 3,300 pphpd

(Q) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Volume = 1150 pphpd
(R) 2017 Seabus Capacity at Peak Hour = 1540 pphpd
(S) 2017 Seabus Average Weekday Hourly Volume (20hr/day) = 450 pphpd
Q/R = (T) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Load Factor = 75%
Q/S = (U) 2017 Seabus Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Volume Factor = 256%

P*U = (V) 2042 Skytrain Peak Hour (8am) South Average Peak Volume = 8,500 pphpd
V/T = (W) 2042 Skytrain Capacity for 2017 similar crowding levels = 11,300 pphpd

This also doesn't account for what kind of increased development might happen because of the line thereby further increasing the ridership. Tack on 1,200 pphpd and you are at 100% capacity at peak hour. This is all been very liberal though to show a high estimate. (50% car to others mode share, all seabus diverted to skytrain, similar peak volume factors, ect.) All of the mode share shifts are also assumed as if the switch to skytrain happened now, and was gradual over the next 25 years. If the line is built in 2040, then you won't see that mode shift right away and you could probably get away with 12,500 pphpd capacity for 10 years while the mode share shifts, but you will need more than that for the long term of the line which means that the 4th platform at CB will likely be a necessity immediately so that service can double up to 25,000 pphpd.

Also, the line can run completely independent between CB and 23rd. If you can run a direct train every so often from 23rd to Langley and if something goes wrong can't you just revert to the the lines acting separately? It's not quite synonymous with the Sapperton Branch since no trains run only between Production Way and Columbia.

Also note: Expo max capacity is 25,700 people, with 75s headway, and changing every car to 5-car MKII trains. The trains would slightly just out of the station, at 80m and 85m train length. The capacity provided is expected to be reached by 2041 by high-growth forcasts.

Mark III is supposed to have a 10% increased capacity over MKII- and still has row seating https://buzzer.translink.ca/2009/05/...skytrain-cars/
https://books.google.ca/books?id=NbY...eating&f=false
However, MKIII has all the cars fully connected, thus providing extra capacity on that end completely.
converting to transverse seating (from 3-seating arrangement) by approx. 7%, however, this is probably more like 5% due to removal of the 3rd row on parts of the Expo Line Skytrains for bikes.
Let's call this MKIII-B.

Changing the front and back cars into flat-fronted cars can also provide increased capacity, though likely little, (say 1%), so not really worth it. I thus did not account for this small potential capacity increase.


Thus, the effective maximum possible capacity on the Expo with an all 5-car MKIII-B is more like 29,555, or about 30,000 people, a number reached at about 2051 under a high-growth scenario (366.666/year from 2020). A low-growth scenario (273.81/year from 2020) will not reach this number until 2062. Thus, as even with things like the Lonsdale Line, etc mitigating demand off the Expo Line, an expensive upgrade on the Expo will likely be necessary into the 2060s, if not reached by the 2050s.

[fredinno]

Question, how much $$$ would it actually take to extend the station platforms on the Expo to 115m? (5-car trains to 7-car trains max). I know that those stations would have to be build largely on curves, and the Dunsmuir Tunnel would have to be dug up again.

[fredinno]

<>

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

The Expo/Millenium line were designed to accommodate wider trains by removing the platform edge. If we can going to order 40 5-car trains or 50 4-car trains, why not remove the platform edge to accommodate the wider train that both lines support? It would help increase capacity, allow for lots of seating etc. Then move the 108 Mark II's to the Millennium line and the Mark III's we currently have as well. If Bombardier could widen the Mark III's we have, then we would have an extra 21 trains for the Expo line.

As someone else on this forum said, we should have done this when we got the original Mark II trains.

I think it's someone we should seriously consider today. 27 4-car Mark IIs+ 21 4-car Mark III's should be enough for the Milleniun line all the way out to UBC and then all 40-50 wide Mark III's dedicated to the Expo line.

[Citation needed] I know the MKIIs are ~15 cm wider than MKI.

Not even the Soeul Metro system has overhanging trains. If the Expo wasn't designed for wider trains, that means you'd at minimum have to widen the Dunsmuir Tunnel during overnight hours.

[fredinno]

(Ignore the sharp turn onto Hastings in Gastown, it shouldn't be that sharp, but I couldn't change it back b/c on MS Paint. I'll have a better map eventually.)

The Black line is the base case Hastings Line Extension into the West End- and the Red Line is a potential later spur that would connect to the False Creek LRT, the Arbutus LRT, and Kitsilano, leaving space for a future expansion up to Jericho Beach (as a parallel/alt to the Broadway Subway- and to allow expansion of the Broadway Corridor area into Kitsilano)

Black Line: $1.1 B, bored tunnel. Would be part of an impetus to rezone the West End up to Pendrell St. as CD-1, integrating the remaining underdeveloped parts of the West End into Downtown. (Technically possible today, but the pressure is not great enough to make it happen, especially with the current focus on integrating Downtown South, the Flats, NE/SE False Creek, and eventually Broadway and South False Creek.)


Burrard allows alternate transfers onto the Expo, taking pressure off congestion in Waterfront Station. However, it may not be possible to connect the two stations, and provide sufficient room for pedestrians for the new transfer- in which case, the station would be removed.

Robson Mall: Connects to the central part of the Robson Retail district- and would hopefully help revitalize the retail district.

Cardero-West End: As the name implies, connects to the new center of the West End's Community, located next to its community center, as well as Coal Harbor.

Devonian Harbour- Stanley Park: Provides a direct connection to Stanley Park- also the current terminus, as any extension further would mean drilling to get to the North Shore; not yet part of the plans until the Lonsdale Line begins to hit 75% of its ultimate capacity- it is effectively another parallel line.

Red Line: (not yet calculated), Of secondary importance- mostly meant to improve connections into the Southern West End and Kitsilano

Comox-St. Peters: Connects to Lord Roberts School Annex and St. Peter's- the nominal name for the new West End hospital following the construction of New St. Peters.

Sunset Beach: As its name suggests, intended to connect the Southern West End and Sunset Beach to the Skytrain Network. Not sure if the VAC will stay there or not.

Vanier-Kitsilano: Transfers to the False Creek LRT and Artubus LRT, funneling people away from the Canada Line. Also connects to Vanier Park, as the name.



I think listing all the connection points for the stations aren't that necessary, but let me know if I should try a different method to introduce most these lines.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The Black line is the base case Hastings Line Extension into the West End- and the Red Line is a potential later spur that would connect to the False Creek LRT, the Arbutus LRT, and Kitsilano, leaving space for a future expansion up to Jericho Beach (as a parallel/alt to the Broadway Subway- and to allow expansion of the Broadway Corridor area into Kitsilano)

My big concern with your map is the spacing between stations - most of them are 600m to 800m apart, which is the spacing for B-Line stops. Even in downtown Vancouver I would try to make them at least 1km apart. The location of the Red spur lie is also very close to Canada Line - maybe something that splits of north of your Robson Mall stop?

I'd also leave the Hastings Line on Hastings and have an underground walkway to connect with Waterfront as it isn't *that* far away.

[officedweller]

I think Maple Tree Square is the best location for a Gastown Station (the line could remain on the waterfront RoW with a walkway from the square).
Hastings would be a problem area for a station.

Stadium Station serves the west side of Chinatown, Main Street Station is close to the other side of Chinatown,
and the future streetcar will provide fine grain connections.

Here's where I'd place the tunnel and stations as an extension of the Expo Line:
(yellow = alternate)

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.28234...-CA&authuser=0

[Bdawe]

That's an interesting design, and certainly looks easier to do than a more immediate jump over to Hastings that I had always assumed

That said, I would be worried about being so far from Hastings, but an 800 m radius circle around the Oppenheimer Park station site does cover almost the entirety of the East End.