Transit Fantasies

[Migrant_Coconut]

For argument's sake, let's assume that in Timeline A, the First Narrows option is built from Phibbs to Waterfront via Norgate and the SeaBus gets cancelled; in Timeline B, the Purple Line is built from Park Royal to Metrotown and runs in tandem with it.
Let's also assume Norgate can be sped up to run from Lonsdale to Waterfront just as fast as the ferry it replaced.

Which start and end point (from anywhere in the metro) will make A the faster trip over B? Far as I can tell, it's only trips to/from West Van or Norgate that benefit outright.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by fredinno

...if we're getting a Hwy 1 Expansion, there's no point to use the exact same route for Skytrain. Both are at the same rough level of planning (preliminary).
The NS crossing study also presumes Ironworkers will not last all that much longer either, which is why they got rid of using the existing bridge under-deck....

When are we getting this supposed Highway 1 expansion? The IWM is due for replacement sometime in the 2060s, although these things have a way of getting dragged out as Pattullo Bridge users well know. As for the rest of it, there's a recent study with lots of recommendations but no commitments from government as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

...having been stuck on multiple buses for multiple half-hours just for said Brentwood-Phibbs stretch, I can very much confirm that it'll be more than a few minutes at peak.
There's already a perfectly workable ferry to downtown; it's been explained by actual locals that a Norgate SkyTrain would actually be longer than the SeaBus is. By contrast, there's not many ways to A) cross Burrard Inlet from east of Main, B) get from Park Royal to the SeaBus to Phibbs, C) switch from the Expo to the Millennium, or D) get from the North Shore to Brentwood to BCIT to Metrotown (or a combination of C and D).

As a resident, many of the backups all seem to tie into the Ironworkers (or, not to put all the blame on the bridge itself, the roads around it). It's not uncommon for traffic to back up past Lonsdale, Westview and even into West Vancouver because of the IWM crossing and that also has a disastrous effect on trying to get east-west on the North Shore itself. Getting cars off of the Lions Gate will certainly help the west side of the North Shore; getting cars off of the IWM helps a much larger area travel freely.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Either way, you're crossing Burrard Inlet; the only way to reduce cost over Second Narrows would be to cut out Park Royal, and the only way to increase benefit would be to add it back.



Purple is basically three lines slapped together - Willingdon, Hastings and the R2 (all roads, no freeways) - so IDK what the angle is here.

Only one crossing has been studied for traffic reduction and housing numbers, so we'll agree to disagree.

... As opposed to big demand generators such as Cap Mall, Indian Reserve 5 and Stanley Park? Once again, they're pretty evenly matched destination-wise.

I see you haven't taken transit over the North Shore very often; having been stuck on multiple buses for multiple half-hours just for said Brentwood-Phibbs stretch, I can very much confirm that it'll be more than a few minutes at peak.
There's already a perfectly workable ferry to downtown; it's been explained by actual locals that a Norgate SkyTrain would actually be longer than the SeaBus is. By contrast, there's not many ways to A) cross Burrard Inlet from east of Main, B) get from Park Royal to the SeaBus to Phibbs, C) switch from the Expo to the Millennium, or D) get from the North Shore to Brentwood to BCIT to Metrotown (or a combination of C and D).

Read my comment.
I mentioned bus lanes.
Please stop skimming.

Both IWMB and NS Skytrain are preliminary 'maybe later.'
If NS Skytrain is 2045 and IWMB is 2060, then there's an argument to be made to plan for future developments in mind.

[Migrant_Coconut]

You're skimming mine, so I guess we're even. We both know bus lanes aren't a permanent fix. The future development potential is pretty much even on both sides of Lonsdale, and in terms of current development, the Phibbs side is winning.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You're skimming mine, so I guess we're even. We both know bus lanes aren't a permanent fix. The future development potential is pretty much even on both sides of Lonsdale, and in terms of current development, the Phibbs side is winning.

Well, getting a fast crossing on 1st Narrows is likely impossible outside Skytrain, and so my solution tries to give a fast crossing on all the corridors.

When the buses reach capacity, they can be converted to Skytrain.
The Willingdon and Hastings Lines would be nice regardless of NS Skytrain anyways.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Bus lanes on Georgia and Marine Drive. Same difference.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Bus lanes on Georgia and Marine Drive. Same difference.

You can't put bus lanes on the Lion's Gate.
Freeways are also much faster than surface streets, and don't have stoplights or cars slowing down on the curb so they can make right turns.
Hwy 1 HOV is actually faster for non-Burnaby travelers to North Shore than Skytrain, so both HOV and Skytrain would likely be built on the 2nd Narrows.

It's worse from Metrotown, though, so there's that.


Also, mayors preferring certain options doesn't necessarily mean much (see LRT).
Also, getting in and out of the West End and Downtown is never easy, even with bus lanes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

"Georgia and Marine Drive" - not the Lions Gate, the roads leading up to it, because those are the bottlenecks most of the time. Hardly an easy fix (don't recall ever saying it was) but neither is implementing the same at Dollarton or Hastings.

Also see McCallum and the SLS. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

You're looking at a time savings from Skytrain over bus of a few minutes from Brentwood to Phibbs at most (mostly due to the time to get in and out of the street grid).
There's not really any big demand generators (maybe PNE) between the Millennium and Phibbs.

This is just crazy talk. The 130 does Brentwood to Phibbs in 20 minutes (and that is without massive congestion on the IWM). Assuming the Skytrain follows the same route that is 7 km with AT MOST three interim stops. The Expo does Royal Oak to Commercial/Broadway (8 km and four interim stops) in 11 minutes. So you're cutting the travel time at least in half and never mind the increased reliability and comfort of taking a train instead of a bus.

Brentwood will generate enough trips on its own that I'm not worried about fewer boardings on Hastings. Although I imagine the R5 between the DTES and SFU would feed a bunch of trips into the line.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Read my comment.
I mentioned bus lanes.

I think we're all confused about what you're proposing. Aren't we all talking about a hypothetical train to the North Shore? Bus lanes for either route would hardly be an improvement because the real bottlenecks are the Lionsgate and IWM bridges. And sort of BRT is an interim improvement and I believe Translink recognizes that.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, mayors preferring certain options doesn't necessarily mean much (see LRT).
Also, getting in and out of the West End and Downtown is never easy, even with bus lanes.

Translink has included in the 10-year priorities two separate bullet points:

• Establishing up to nine BRT routes (including Lonsdale to DT via First Narrows and Metrotown to Park Royal via Second Narrows)
• Establishing a rapid transit connection to the North Shore

Considering that these are two separate bullet points, I would call into question your timeline of a 2045 North Shore Skytrain. Combine that with the Mayors Council's priorities which are BRT within the next five years and establishing a North Shore light rail or Skytrain soon afterwards and before UBC and I would wager a rail project to the North Shore will break ground when Langley is completed (2028) and might be in service as soon as 2035.

As for the West End, it is actually pretty quick to get to Capilano Road or Park Royal. Burrard to Park Royal is 15 minutes without congestion, and given the bus lanes on Georgia it really only slows down if there is an accident in the bus lane. Burrard to Park Royal is 6 km and a hypothetical Skytrain would likely have three interim stops in the West End. Patterson to Commercial/Broadway is 6 km and has three stops and takes 8 minutes. So again, Skytrain would cut that travel time roughly in half but I would say a train to Park Royal is actually a little bit of a detour for most North Shore riders who take the 240 to Upper Lynn or the 255 to CapU. I can't see Park Royal being skipped despite your Norgate idea so add a few minutes to the hypothetical Skytrain trip to either pickup passengers at Capilano or extend busses like the 240 and 255 to Park Royal, and the advantage for a Skytrain crossing over a bus crossing is suddenly five minutes or less? Compare this to Brentwood to Phibbs which replaces an existing popular bus route and which feeds a bus exchange where every bus (minus the 211) that crosses the IWM stops at.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

This is just crazy talk. The 130 does Brentwood to Phibbs in 20 minutes (and that is without massive congestion on the IWM). Assuming the Skytrain follows the same route that is 7 km with AT MOST three interim stops. The Expo does Royal Oak to Commercial/Broadway (8 km and four interim stops) in 11 minutes. So you're cutting the travel time at least in half and never mind the increased reliability and comfort of taking a train instead of a bus.

Brentwood will generate enough trips on its own that I'm not worried about fewer boardings on Hastings. Although I imagine the R5 between the DTES and SFU would feed a bunch of trips into the line.



I think we're all confused about what you're proposing. Aren't we all talking about a hypothetical train to the North Shore? Bus lanes for either route would hardly be an improvement because the real bottlenecks are the Lionsgate and IWM bridges. And sort of BRT is an interim improvement and I believe Translink recognizes that.



Translink has included in the 10-year priorities two separate bullet points:

• Establishing up to nine BRT routes (including Lonsdale to DT via First Narrows and Metrotown to Park Royal via Second Narrows)
• Establishing a rapid transit connection to the North Shore

Considering that these are two separate bullet points, I would call into question your timeline of a 2045 North Shore Skytrain. Combine that with the Mayors Council's priorities which are BRT within the next five years and establishing a North Shore light rail or Skytrain soon afterwards and before UBC and I would wager a rail project to the North Shore will break ground when Langley is completed (2028) and might be in service as soon as 2035.

As for the West End, it is actually pretty quick to get to Capilano Road or Park Royal. Burrard to Park Royal is 15 minutes without congestion, and given the bus lanes on Georgia it really only slows down if there is an accident in the bus lane. Burrard to Park Royal is 6 km and a hypothetical Skytrain would likely have three interim stops in the West End. Patterson to Commercial/Broadway is 6 km and has three stops and takes 8 minutes. So again, Skytrain would cut that travel time roughly in half but I would say a train to Park Royal is actually a little bit of a detour for most North Shore riders who take the 240 to Upper Lynn or the 255 to CapU. I can't see Park Royal being skipped despite your Norgate idea so add a few minutes to the hypothetical Skytrain trip to either pickup passengers at Capilano or extend busses like the 240 and 255 to Park Royal, and the advantage for a Skytrain crossing over a bus crossing is suddenly five minutes or less? Compare this to Brentwood to Phibbs which replaces an existing popular bus route and which feeds a bus exchange where every bus (minus the 211) that crosses the IWM stops at.

Rupert Station because that's where the HOV exit leads, as an extension to the 555.

Ignore the traffic because of the bus lanes.

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/tra...priorities.pdf
https://view.publitas.com/translink/...trategy/page/1
NS Skytrain is not on the 10-year plan. UBC and Langley are next on the list.

On the Transport 2050 plan, there are 6 competing lines that could be considered for Skytrain: Hastings, Willingdon, Port Coq, 104-King George, North Shore, and 41st.

KGB-104th have probably the most complete planning behind it, and it was part of the last plan. Hastings and 41 have the highest demand levels. We have no reason to believe NS is necessarily the next one on the list.

Also, Marine Dr. Skytrain is most likely going to happen no matter what. Hard for pretty much any crossing option without it- it's like Surrey Skytrain with only Scott Road.
Also, the demand center is Vancouver + Richmond <> North Shore.

Note that the NS crossing study also assumed a Marine Dr. Skytrain to get to Lonsdale (Port Royal for First Narrows), and still put the First Narrows/Norgate at the top for ridership and cost/benefit.

Demand-wise, 1st Narrows and 2nd Narrows have similar ridership and service levels on their buses.


Port Royal for Norgate would likely be a Phase 2 or future extension. Norgate would be cheaper than the 2nd Narrows options anyways, so at the same cost levels, you may as well add Port Royal.

If you could reverse the Expo line at Waterfront as proposed with Columbia earlier, (not sure about how feasible that is, considering Coal Harbour), you could also have a single-seat Skytrain ride across basically the entire region, from Norgate to Langley.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Meh, Pacific's no better or worse than Waterfront as a terminus, especially in 2035 or beyond. Richmond, Delta or YVR? Expo to Granville, change at City Centre. Broadway? Same thing. Mission? Bus/taxi/(streetcar?) over to Waterfront. North Shore? Same thing, or bus/SkyTrain via Second Narrows. Literally anywhere else? Pacific may very well be closer to it than Waterfront is.

The WCE's basically only there because it's a straight shot from Mission to downtown on a single corridor (i.e. they didn't have to detour, or negotiate with both CP and CN at the same time) - law of parsimony and all that. The HSR's coming up with its own ROW, and so it can basically go anywhere it wants to.

I mean, Surrey is closer to the rest of the region than Pac Central.

Pretty sure we want HSR to get to DT Vancouver for the convenience of a direct exit into the heart of downtown.

Waterfront also allows a single transfer to a ton of destinations, which can be important.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Good thing HSR wouldn't be a regional service. PCS would be the inter-city hub while Waterfront would be the regional hub and they would only be three stops away from each other.

That means 2 terminuses. Not sure about the economics for that.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Having grown up on the NS, the seabus is only really useful if you live in lower Lonsdale and want to go somewhere in the immediate vicinity of Waterfront Station or thereabouts, anyting else was faster to bus.

LeftCoaster made my point. Seabus is a pretty niche service as is, and it's not easy for buses to get in and out of Lonsdale. The 1st Narrows buses are faster right now, let alone Skytrain.

Seabus would be maybe used from people who want to go directly from Lonsdale to Waterfront, but not from people who want to go to any other station (like Cap Mall to West End.)

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I think in absolute terms DT Vancouver won't see much of a decline in commuters but the other town centres (Surrey Central, Metrotown, Brentwood, Richmond, etc.) will see an explosion of commuters. So in relative terms DT Vancouver will decline in importance. This means that DT Vancouver may only need small capacity increases but Surrey will likely need a whole new hub-and-spoke rapid transit network similar to what Vancouver has today.

You seem to be thinking along the same lines as the people who don't want Skytrain to UBC and want everyone at UBC to live and work in the UEL.
Just because the jobs and housing are distributed across the city, that doesn't mean there's necessarily less (or much less) demand for DT Vancouver <> rest of region.

[Migrant_Coconut]

So far, UBC and the North Shore are the only corridors with actual studies and numbers crunched; King George, 41st and Hastings don't have that yet. It's pretty obvious what TransLink'll be looking at first.

Originally Posted by fredinno

... Note that the NS crossing study also assumed a Marine Dr. Skytrain to get to Lonsdale (Port Royal for First Narrows), and still put the First Narrows/Norgate at the top for ridership and cost/benefit.

Demand-wise, 1st Narrows and 2nd Narrows have similar ridership and service levels on their buses...

We must be looking at different studies, because the official one doesn't give cost/benefit or ridership. And actually, most bus usage is on the Second Narrows; First is slightly greater BUT split 66/33 between West Van and North Van.*

*If TransLink does the Norgate route, the existing Park Royal-downtown ride is actually just as fast or faster than truncating the buses at Norgate, so it's likely that TL won't, and so the SkyTrain only gets the Norgate catchment; if TL does the Park Royal route, then they can truncate the buses there, but now they're tunnelling across the widest part of the inlet just to get a few thousand more boardings (less than that, if Horseshoe Bay passengers on the 250 opt to ride all the way in).

Originally Posted by fredinno

I mean, Surrey is closer to the rest of the region than Pac Central.

Pretty sure we want HSR to get to DT Vancouver for the convenience of a direct exit into the heart of downtown.

Waterfront also allows a single transfer to a ton of destinations, which can be important.

Poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe. Pacific's about equidistant to Metrotown against King George, and also much closer to Brentwood. There's also the possibility that we only get one station.

The heart of downtown is Granville and Georgia - Waterfront or Pacific, doesn't matter, you're walking, cabbing or taking a SkyTrain to get there.

The WCE at the wrong time is a lousier option for getting to Coquitlam (and chances of it getting better are low), and I doubt visitors from the States are dying to go to Mission.
If you feel like arguing against yourself, then yeah, you'd have a point with the SeaBus, but by the time HSR becomes a thing, there's likely a direct connection between Pacific and Waterfront, as well as a North Shore SkyTrain.

Originally Posted by fredinno

That means 2 terminuses. Not sure about the economics for that.

LeftCoaster made my point. Seabus is a pretty niche service as is, and it's not easy for buses to get in and out of Lonsdale. The 1st Narrows buses are faster right now, let alone Skytrain.

Seabus would be maybe used from people who want to go directly from Lonsdale to Waterfront, but not from people who want to go to any other station (like Cap Mall to West End.)

You seem to be thinking along the same lines as the people who don't want Skytrain to UBC and want everyone at UBC to live and work in the UEL.
Just because the jobs and housing are distributed across the city, that doesn't mean there's necessarily less (or much less) demand for DT Vancouver <> rest of region.

Many cities have multiple interchanges. It's a balance between efficient transfer and redundancy/crowd control... and since Waterfront is unlikely to get an expansion, the latter seems like a bigger priority.

Run it through Google Maps, and you'll find that it actually averages out to be the same; sometimes the ferry is two minutes faster, sometimes the bus. A Norgate SkyTrain really only serves the West End and West Van; it'll be just as hard to get to Yaletown, Davie or NEFC and the stadiums as with the SeaBus.

I don't see Farmer arguing against SkyTrain here (if they were a Condonbot, they wouldn't be hiding it). No, the argument is that downtown won't be the only high-demand area. So why should everybody go through downtown before going anywhere else, which is the same mistake the Surrey streetcars made? A long-distance commute from Lonsdale to Metrotown or Whalley should be equally viable.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So far, UBC and the North Shore are the only corridors with actual studies and numbers crunched; King George, 41st and Hastings don't have that yet. It's pretty obvious what TransLink'll be looking at first.



We must be looking at different studies, because the official one doesn't give cost/benefit or ridership. And actually, most bus usage is on the Second Narrows; First is slightly greater BUT split 66/33 between West Van and North Van.*

*If TransLink does the Norgate route, the existing Park Royal-downtown ride is actually just as fast or faster than truncating the buses at Norgate, so it's likely that TL won't, and so the SkyTrain only gets the Norgate catchment; if TL does the Park Royal route, then they can truncate the buses there, but now they're tunnelling across the widest part of the inlet just to get a few thousand more boardings (less than that, if Horseshoe Bay passengers on the 250 opt to ride all the way in).



Many cities have multiple interchanges. It's a balance between efficient transfer and redundancy/crowd control... and since Waterfront is unlikely to get an expansion, the latter seems like a bigger priority.

Run it through Google Maps, and you'll find that it actually averages out to be the same; sometimes the ferry is two minutes faster, sometimes the bus. A Norgate SkyTrain really only serves the West End and West Van; it'll be just as hard to get to Yaletown, Davie or NEFC and the stadiums as with the SeaBus.

I don't see Farmer arguing against SkyTrain here (if they were a Condonbot, they wouldn't be hiding it). No, the argument is that downtown won't be the only high-demand area. So why should everybody go through downtown before going anywhere else, which is the same mistake the Surrey streetcars made? A long-distance commute from Lonsdale to Metrotown or Whalley should be equally viable.

This is the official map of the NS crossing options.

I think you are looking at the Daily Hive map, which doesn't accurately represent what lines the study is referring to, and only shows the crossings. Both options terminating in Central Lonsdale may terminate at the Quay.


Again, literally every option in the NS crossing study has a Marine Dr. Line.
Norgate connects to both Lonsdale and West Van well.
It's only bad for Phibbs.


King George had official studies done as part of the SLS and Surrey LRT options, including Skytrain on King George, where it did ok.

If the NS study you're referring to is the Phase 2 2nd Narrows one, then Hastings was also a part of it- at least to an extent.
Yellow's demand seems to be largely from Hastings anyways, which is one of the most used bus lines, and inflates the numbers despite its circuitous route.

Either way, it's not in the 10 year plan, so it's >2030s opening date anyways, not 2030, as Farmer stated.





Cost isn't really there, TBF.

The reduction in auto demand is the important one here.
3A would do better if it was connected to Park Royal later on as a spur or new line.
2A is highest cost option.


I would also note that the Yellow option (Hastings+ NS) in the NS crossing study is the only one stated that Seabus would still be used significantly.



I was responding to the idea that Farmer had that Vancouver demand would not grow much because of regional town centers.
Vancouver is growing a lot still, and so demand will grow quite a bit.
Even if it doesn't, commuters still go back and forth from Vancouver more than if no new growth in the town centers were there at all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

... I think you are looking at the Daily Hive map, which doesn't accurately represent what lines the study is referring to, and only shows the crossings. Both options terminating in Central Lonsdale may terminate at the Quay

... The reduction in auto demand is the important one here.
3A would do better if it was connected to Park Royal later on as a spur or new line.
2A is highest cost option

I would also note that the Yellow option (Hastings+ NS) in the NS crossing study is the only one stated that Seabus would still be used significantly....

Okay, so we are looking at the same study... no ridership, no cost/benefit, and as has been observed, no accounting for the Willingdon Corridor in reducing traffic. A bunch of one-sentence blurbs aren't much better for predicting TransLink's decision-making; 5B and 5C also include "opportunity to stimulate mode shift and reduce congestion on IWMB," and all options save 1A (which has been taken out of the running) keep the SeaBus.

It's got to be 2A or one of the 5s to connect Park Royal. Having spent a lot of time waiting at Brighouse, Lansdowne, Aberdeen, YVR and Sapperton, I can confirm that spurs are lousy.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Again, literally every option in the NS crossing study has a Marine Dr. Line.
Norgate connects to both Lonsdale and West Van well.
It's only bad for Phibbs.

Did I say or imply that Norgate would terminate at Central Lonsdale? Even if it continues to Phibbs, locals have (again) explained how the ride would actually be slightly longer than the SeaBus; in other words, one can wait at Waterfront, ride across the harbour to Lonsdale and grab the train eastward from there... and it would be roughly the same as riding the SkyTrain all the way, give or take ~5 minutes. So it's tied with Phibbs in that regard, and so the only flat-out "winners" with a Norgate alignment are indeed just West Van, Norgate itself and the West End.

Originally Posted by fredinno

I was responding to the idea that Farmer had that Vancouver demand would not grow much because of regional town centers.
Vancouver is growing a lot still, and so demand will grow quite a bit.
Even if it doesn't, commuters still go back and forth from Vancouver more than if no new growth in the town centers were there at all.

Full quote:

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I think in absolute terms DT Vancouver won't see much of a decline in commuters but the other town centres (Surrey Central, Metrotown, Brentwood, Richmond, etc.) will see an explosion of commuters. So in relative terms DT Vancouver will decline in importance. This means that DT Vancouver may only need small capacity increases but Surrey will likely need a whole new hub-and-spoke rapid transit network similar to what Vancouver has today.

Translation: "downtown will be important, Whalley, Metrotown, et al will be equally important, therefore a less-centralized SkyTrain network is preferable." You're seeing things which aren't there.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

NS Skytrain is not on the 10-year plan. UBC and Langley are next on the list.

You're right, Langley is next because it's already being built. And in the 10-year plan the only explicit Skytrain expansion is the extension to UBC.

But there are two other corridors mentioned where Translink will implement "BRT and Study Alternatives". These two corridors are Metrotown to Park Royal and KGB, which you mentioned.

Langley is supposed to be finished by 2028, so I think it is reasonable to expect the next expansion to break ground around 2030 (or earlier if built concurrently with Langley). Translink has told us priority 1 is UBC and priority 2A and 2B are NS and KGB. Considering that the mayors want NS to become number one on that list ahead of both UBC and KGB, I think it is reasonable to think Metrotown to Park Royal will be first. But as you mentioned the mayors don't always get what they want, so we're all just guessing.

But the one corridor that is only mentioned as due for a BRT upgrade and for which Translink does not plan to "Study Alternatives" is Lonsdale to DT via First Narrows.

Originally Posted by fredinno

You seem to be thinking along the same lines as the people who don't want Skytrain to UBC and want everyone at UBC to live and work in the UEL.
Just because the jobs and housing are distributed across the city, that doesn't mean there's necessarily less (or much less) demand for DT Vancouver <> rest of region.

This is not true. I want Broadway to UBC and 41/49 to UBC and a Hastings line. But I also think Surrey in the next decade or two will need as much if not more new rapid transit infrastructure than Vancouver because of population projections.

I do not think overall demand for transit to Vancouver will fall. In fact, it will probably rise because of the Broadway Plan. But I think Vancouver's transit demand may increase marginally and eventually plateau, while Surrey's transit demand may increase exponentially as Surrey Central is built out as the metro's second job centre.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Either way, it's not in the 10 year plan, so it's >2030s opening date anyways, not 2030, as Farmer stated.

I would wager a rail project to the North Shore will break ground when Langley is completed (2028) and might be in service as soon as 2035.

I never mentioned a 2030 opening date. Whatever project starts when Langley is completed will likely take seven years or less (Langley is taking five, UBC is taking four) and I think NS will jump the que ahead of UBC and KGB. I may or may not be correct, but I think whatever project is next after Langley and Broadway will be open by 2035 pending funding constraints.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Did I say or imply that Norgate would terminate at Central Lonsdale? Even if it continues to Phibbs, locals have (again) explained how the ride would actually be slightly longer than the SeaBus; in other words, one can wait at Waterfront, ride across the harbour to Lonsdale and grab the train eastward from there... and it would be roughly the same as riding the SkyTrain all the way, give or take ~5 minutes. So it's tied with Phibbs in that regard, and so the only flat-out "winners" with a Norgate alignment are indeed just West Van, Norgate itself and the West End.

I think both a First Narrows and Second Narrows alignment would include Marine Drive, so the east-west connection within the north shore communities would be greatly improved either way. But the Second Narrows option as you say would have a much larger impact on the metro as a whole.

It could be argued that removing vehicles from the Lionsgate isn't nearly as important as removing them from the IWM. Yes, emergency vehicles use the Lionsgate regularly, but the IWM is part of the TCH and as such carries a ton of commercial vehicles that are critical to the economy. Removing a few thousand vehicles from that crossing everyday so that commercial traffic flows more smoothly would be a huge benefit.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

3A would do better if it was connected to Park Royal later on as a spur or new line.

If Park Royal connects to DT via a spur (and therefore a transfer at Capilano station or something), then I doubt there will be any time savings compared to a bus. As I mentioned, 10 minutes from Park Royal to Burrard via bus, 5 minutes via Skytrain with three interim stops. Add an extra stop and waiting for a transfer and suddenly there are no time savings (although Skytrain is more reliable and consistent than a bus, which would help on those crazy weekends when seemingly everyone and their dog shops at Park Royal.) If a line is routed via First Narrows it has to go directly to Park Royal before turning east.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

You're right, Langley is next because it's already being built. And in the 10-year plan the only explicit Skytrain expansion is the extension to UBC.

But there are two other corridors mentioned where Translink will implement "BRT and Study Alternatives". These two corridors are Metrotown to Park Royal and KGB, which you mentioned.

Langley is supposed to be finished by 2028, so I think it is reasonable to expect the next expansion to break ground around 2030 (or earlier if built concurrently with Langley). Translink has told us priority 1 is UBC and priority 2A and 2B are NS and KGB. Considering that the mayors want NS to become number one on that list ahead of both UBC and KGB, I think it is reasonable to think Metrotown to Park Royal will be first. But as you mentioned the mayors don't always get what they want, so we're all just guessing.

But the one corridor that is only mentioned as due for a BRT upgrade and for which Translink does not plan to "Study Alternatives" is Lonsdale to DT via First Narrows.

Technically, no North Shore crossing or Marine Drive Skytrain/grade separation is in that either. If you want to go 100% by the map, the Skytrain would end at Phibbs, and stay that way until >2050s.

Not a great connector.

This is not true. I want Broadway to UBC and 41/49 to UBC and a Hastings line. But I also think Surrey in the next decade or two will need as much if not more new rapid transit infrastructure than Vancouver because of population projections.

I do not think overall demand for transit to Vancouver will fall. In fact, it will probably rise because of the Broadway Plan. But I think Vancouver's transit demand may increase marginally and eventually plateau, while Surrey's transit demand may increase exponentially as Surrey Central is built out as the metro's second job centre.

That's what I disagree with. I doubt Vancouver demand will plateau- because there being 2 centers still means people travel between them a ton. Surrey's growth will still increase demand for Vancouver. The two are complimentary.

I never mentioned a 2030 opening date. Whatever project starts when Langley is completed will likely take seven years or less (Langley is taking five, UBC is taking four) and I think NS will jump the que ahead of UBC and KGB. I may or may not be correct, but I think whatever project is next after Langley and Broadway will be open by 2035 pending funding constraints.

Sorry, I meant 2030s. UBC will go first 100% (by far the most complete and highest demand). NS and KGB may compete over the next slot- if we're being generous and not assuming massive increases in funding, NS will occur sometime in 2038-2045. Hence, my 2045 date.

IWMB expansion is also likely the next freeway expansion project post-George Massey. If the NDP gets kicked out of power, we might get it around the same time as Skytrain.

I think both a First Narrows and Second Narrows alignment would include Marine Drive, so the east-west connection within the north shore communities would be greatly improved either way. But the Second Narrows option as you say would have a much larger impact on the metro as a whole.

It could be argued that removing vehicles from the Lionsgate isn't nearly as important as removing them from the IWM. Yes, emergency vehicles use the Lionsgate regularly, but the IWM is part of the TCH and as such carries a ton of commercial vehicles that are critical to the economy. Removing a few thousand vehicles from that crossing everyday so that commercial traffic flows more smoothly would be a huge benefit.

IWMB also will likely be expanded in the future. Lions' Gate won't. That's something to keep in mind.

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

If Park Royal connects to DT via a spur (and therefore a transfer at Capilano station or something), then I doubt there will be any time savings compared to a bus. As I mentioned, 10 minutes from Park Royal to Burrard via bus, 5 minutes via Skytrain with three interim stops. Add an extra stop and waiting for a transfer and suddenly there are no time savings (although Skytrain is more reliable and consistent than a bus, which would help on those crazy weekends when seemingly everyone and their dog shops at Park Royal.) If a line is routed via First Narrows it has to go directly to Park Royal before turning east.

Green is Marine Dr. Skytrain, Blue is Expo extension to connect to Lonsdale and Park Royal.

It may also go from Park Royal to Capilano Mall, then backwards onto Expo, if a west spur isn't feasible here (as described originally for Columbia), or if you want to only have 1 transfer station instead of 2. (Norgate and Cap Mall).


There is 1 stop in the West End (or Coal Harbour, since it's a direct connection to Waterfront in this version) before reaching the transfer station at Cap Mall.

So 2 interim stops.

The closest analogy on Skytrain would be the 7.6km section from Lougheed T. Center to Inlet Center, or 12 min. 14 minutes with the extra stop at Cap Mall (or extending the analogous Skytrain path from Production Way to Inlet Center instead)
That's a consistent 6+ minutes improvement, or about 1/4th the journey time. Optimistically, 1/3rd. Also, you get a station on the West End/Coal Harbour area.

Same crossing time for Waterfront to Lonsdale (a bit faster if you remove a station on Mission 1.)

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, so we are looking at the same study... no ridership, no cost/benefit, and as has been observed, no accounting for the Willingdon Corridor in reducing traffic. A bunch of one-sentence blurbs aren't much better for predicting TransLink's decision-making; 5B and 5C also include "opportunity to stimulate mode shift and reduce congestion on IWMB," and all options save 1A (which has been taken out of the running) keep the SeaBus.

It's got to be 2A or one of the 5s to connect Park Royal. Having spent a lot of time waiting at Brighouse, Lansdowne, Aberdeen, YVR and Sapperton, I can confirm that spurs are lousy.

Well, the rest also imply Seabus isn't going to be used much. If we go back to 15-30 min service, there's an argument to just get rid of the thing and save the maintenance costs, and push everyone onto Skytrain, since Skytrain is going to be much more consistent for most trips, even if it's maybe slightly slower for a few trips.

They may preserve it with only 1-2 Seabuses operational if they're forced to.

Did I say or imply that Norgate would terminate at Central Lonsdale? Even if it continues to Phibbs, locals have (again) explained how the ride would actually be slightly longer than the SeaBus; in other words, one can wait at Waterfront, ride across the harbour to Lonsdale and grab the train eastward from there... and it would be roughly the same as riding the SkyTrain all the way, give or take ~5 minutes. So it's tied with Phibbs in that regard, and so the only flat-out "winners" with a Norgate alignment are indeed just West Van, Norgate itself and the West End.

I showed above the crossing at Norgate (both having terminuses at Waterfront) would have similar crossing times to Seabus to either Lonsdale or Park Royal) (12-14 min), while Skytrain has better frequencies and is more flexible.

I agree spurs suck.

But even splitting Expo into 2 would have >= 2x the frequency vs Seabus (4 min vs 10-15 min).


Moving the transfer to Norgate instead of Cap Mall makes it a bit worse for Lonsdale, but it's not a massive difference.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Well, the rest also imply Seabus isn't going to be used much. If we go back to 15-30 min service, there's an argument to just get rid of the thing and save the maintenance costs, and push everyone onto Skytrain, since Skytrain is going to be much more consistent for most trips, even if it's maybe slightly slower for a few trips.

They may preserve it with only 1-2 Seabuses operational if they're forced to.



I showed above the crossing at Norgate (both having terminuses at Waterfront) would have similar crossing times to Seabus to either Lonsdale or Park Royal) (12-14 min), while Skytrain has better frequencies and is more flexible.

I agree spurs suck.

But even splitting Expo into 2 would have >= 2x the frequency vs Seabus (4 min vs 10-15 min).


Moving the transfer to Norgate instead of Cap Mall makes it a bit worse for Lonsdale, but it's not a massive difference.

Context:

• Circuitous route does not provide the fastest travel times between key OD pairs
  • Substantial trips via SeaBus were still shown in the ridership modelling

All it means is that the long way around saves you no time. There really is no possible universe where SeaBus service drops to every half-hour - like you said, downtown's too important. At “worst” it stays at 10-15 minutes.

Don’t forget that 2A and 3A are supposed to branch off the Expo at Burrard. That means only half the trains can go to Lonsdale while the other half have to go to Waterfront, so the Expo's 2.5-5 minute headways are now 5-10.
Let’s break it down: depending on peak or off-peak, that’s a 5-10 minute wait and a 13-minute ride for the Norgate extension... or a 10-15 minute wait and a 12-minute ride for the ferry... so at most you save 14 minutes on the SkyTrain or 11 minutes on the SeaBus... meaning statistically, Norgate gives you three whole minutes of your life back, just enough time to watch a commercial break. Not the best use of $4+ billion.

A Park Royal spur is just as bad, because West Van/Horseshoe Bay passengers are either waiting 5-10 minutes to get to Lonsdale (downtown-oriented), or the same to get to downtown (Lonsdale-oriented), so commutes are still long, and now TransLink is stuck with another unnecessary switch. A Park Royal extension removes that problem by replacing it with other problems: a more expensive tunnel across the widest part of the inlet, and a longer trip that definitely makes the SeaBus the better option.

Granted, a Phibbs extension doesn’t save three minutes on the First Narrows, but it does save ten minutes or more outright on the Second Narrows, and makes both passengers and operators’ lives simpler instead of equally complicated.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by fredinno

...Well, the rest also imply Seabus isn't going to be used much. If we go back to 15-30 min service, there's an argument to just get rid of the thing and save the maintenance costs, and push everyone onto Skytrain, since Skytrain is going to be much more consistent for most trips, even if it's maybe slightly slower for a few trips.

They may preserve it with only 1-2 Seabuses operational if they're forced to...

Sorry, but how do you interpret "SeaBus remains in operation" to imply "SeaBus isn't going to be used much"? If anything, the text implies that TransLink plans on keeping SeaBus, and certainly not that they feel "forced to".

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Sorry, but how do you interpret "SeaBus remains in operation" to imply "SeaBus isn't going to be used much"? If anything, the text implies that TransLink plans on keeping SeaBus, and certainly not that they feel "forced to".

On Yellow only:

Substantial trips via SeaBus were still shown in the ridership modelling

That implies the other options didn't show substantial ridership on Seabus.

The Phase 2 study for NS 2nd Narrows crossings literally just ignores Seabus entirely.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Context:

All it means is that the long way around saves you no time. There really is no possible universe where SeaBus service drops to every half-hour - like you said, downtown's too important. At “worst” it stays at 10-15 minutes.

Don’t forget that 2A and 3A are supposed to branch off the Expo at Burrard. That means only half the trains can go to Lonsdale while the other half have to go to Waterfront, so the Expo's 2.5-5 minute headways are now 5-10.
Let’s break it down: depending on peak or off-peak, that’s a 5-10 minute wait and a 13-minute ride for the Norgate extension... or a 10-15 minute wait and a 12-minute ride for the ferry... so at most you save 14 minutes on the SkyTrain or 11 minutes on the SeaBus... meaning statistically, Norgate gives you three whole minutes of your life back, just enough time to watch a commercial break. Not the best use of $4+ billion.

A Park Royal spur is just as bad, because West Van/Horseshoe Bay passengers are either waiting 5-10 minutes to get to Lonsdale (downtown-oriented), or the same to get to downtown (Lonsdale-oriented), so commutes are still long, and now TransLink is stuck with another unnecessary switch. A Park Royal extension removes that problem by replacing it with other problems: a more expensive tunnel across the widest part of the inlet, and a longer trip that definitely makes the SeaBus the better option.

Granted, a Phibbs extension doesn’t save three minutes on the First Narrows, but it does save ten minutes or more outright on the Second Narrows, and makes both passengers and operators’ lives simpler instead of equally complicated.

UBC Skytrain was also presumed underground the entire way to UBC underneath Broadway and W 10th and bypassing the Jericho Lands.
Millennium Line Phase 2 early on presumed Skytrain underneath Broadway until they changed it to pass next to the Flats.
I guess RAV did the same too.
Evergreen was initially going to go North-South from Lougheed to Columbia to get to Coquitlam, rather than East-West, as it does now.

TransLink History is littered with changes made to lines beyond the initial intention in the initial studies.

Usually they end up studying literally every conceivable option in the final studies (when they actually want to build them) including stupid ones, like Gondola on Broadway, and having Skytrain to Langley divert up 152nd to 104th Ave.

---
The primary reason I see to make a new branch at Burrard is because the designers thought there would be less conflicts with the buildings in the area and result in less sloped tunnels, as making a new branch at Burrard would force that section of Skytrain to partial-track operation (or shut it down entirely), while creating a spur for no reason.
Either that, or they want to make a Hastings Line later on from the Waterfront spur.
(Most likely IMO, considering Yellow is a seamless extension.)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but those seem the 2 most likely options.

If the reason for a spur at Burrard is the desire for Expo to go to Hastings (I never liked that idea, but ok), then you'd have to have a new line to and from NS.

But that's not a required thing.
We'd have to find out if having Expo go to Hastings or it go to Norgate is more efficient, which needs further study.

Again, this is a preliminary study, and the study notes that the current alignment especially in DT Vancouver is preliminary and should not be taken 100% seriously.


---
I was referring to the guy talking about Park Royal transfers on the bus. That's 20 minutes across the LGB in good conditions. Same time frame (sometimes) if you use the Seabus instead from West Van.

Lonsdale<>Waterfront isn't any faster, but it's also not any slower, and has better frequency.
---

Also, purple needs a transfer as well, or a spur from Millennium Line, which you're trying to avoid.
Yellow also requires >1 transfer from most places to get onto the 2nd Narrows crossing (except from Vancouver, which goes around in a circutous loop anyways.)